From Iraq to Iran

[Ken King]

My immediate reaction to your comment was....but instead I'll just say that I never said we shoud do nothing. I only expressed my concern that in this changing world it appears that diplomacy is no longer practiced in the manner it was (occasionally, I will agree) in the past. Having said that, war is still a testament to the failure of diplomacy. Just expressing my opinion, not expecting you to understand or agree. Have a nice day.

I don't expect you to understand much of anything either, but just how open to diplomacy was Hussein and how far did it get us during the 12 years immediately preceding the invasion?

 

[Nupe2]

Refuting the BullShiat Continues :
All Underlined Items are Linky's

When you use Michael Moore as your source of "information" you are bound to run into problems (namely Facts)


Woop-dee-Doo, Hitlary Klinton sat on the Board of Wal-Mart



Your talking points are screwing you up, before you said he was CEO from 1995-2000 now its just 8 Months of work?

FactCheck.org





So he shouldnt be paid for his work?

FactCheck.org




Actually thats not what it said, but your going off of Talking Points so we dont expect you to actually find out for yourself





Take a gander from theBastion of Conservatism

First you show your ignorance in how Government Contracting works. ALL government contracts run (that is start and end) on a (fiscal) yearly basis, all of them. But in an effort to streamline how (all) contracts are handled, the Government and the Contracting company reach agreements (typically 3, 5 or 10 years) so that they dont have to go through the Bidding/Procurement process Every Fiscal Year (ends September 30th).
VIRTUALLY all government contracts work this way, its a Win for the Government (they get garrunteed service for a set time, and dont have to go through a Huge Retrain process every year) and a Win for the Contracting Company (garunteed income).
This is how BAE, Titan, Caci and Booz|Allen (and others) have stayed at Pax for as long as they have.
Second Haliburton was awarded the Iraqi Contracts during the Klinton presidency, 1998 i believe (oops kind sucks to be you). When there was thought that we'd re-invade Iraq (for throwing out the Weapons Inspectors), they went to the company that was Contracted for the Bosnia "issue" and awarded them the contract in the event we went to war (again) with Iraq. when the 2003 Iraq invasion came about, Halliburton was just awarded its existing contract.
Third how many companies (at the time) could do what Halliburton was awarded (in 1998) the contract for? 1 it was a French company, guess you LibTARDs do support outsourcing.



And besides LibTARD pontificators no one has proven otherwise.



have a link?



Our Sons and Daughters, who are ADULTS and Volunteered, are dying to provide the same freedom of being able to Spout LibTARD BS that you enjoy.



Because Dan Rather, Michael Moore and the Sainted Klintons have harboured an environment where Kooky LibTARDs will believe the Sky is Falling, George Bush's environmental policies caused it, and Halliburton is profitting from it.

You are supposedy more intelligent than us Truck driving, Whitetrash Red State, Racist conservatives, yet you'll believe the most idiotic vitriol.

Funny guy. Also, your information on federal contracting is incorrect. All contracts do not run on a fiscal year basis. Many types of contracts, especially cost reimbursement R&D contracts cross fiscal years and are funded incrementally. Also, each contracting activity, especially DOD has a formal process for the review and evaluation of proposed sole-source awards. The process is designed to determine if more than one source is available that can provide the supplies or services required by the government. There are exceptions to the normal requirements for competitions and one or more, but usually one of these exceptions must be cited as the basis for the proposed sole-source award. From all that I've read about the Halliburton award there are significant questions as to whether that process was followed as intended.

 

[Toxick]

The sheep completely bought into what the GOP have sold them.

:choke: :sputter:

Hell...they REALLY believe that FOX "News" is fair and balanced!

Right.

Not only conservatives believe it, but independent/libertarian type folks ( such as Yours Truly ), also believe it.

The leftists only believe that Fox News is Right-Wing because they don't get their daily heaping helpings of vociferous attacks on anything right of center which make up the unrelenting staples of their CNN and CBS diet.


Whenever I hear a liberal/leftist/sheep bleating about how "Faux" News is so sympathetic to the GOP and how ruthlessly right-wing they are, I'm invariably reminded of an attraction I once went to... I think it was Jellystone Park. You go through "Yogi's" house, and you get to see all the fun stuff like Booboo eating breakfast, and Mr. Ranger saving the day.

The end of the 'ride' was a slanted hallway which ran about 50-100 feet long where the floor was banked about 40 degrees toward the Port side. About halfway through you start to get the hang of it, and you continue walking - until you get outside to a flat surface : and suddenly the earth feels like it's corkscrewing to the right.


I find this to be the PERFECT metaphor of Liberals' reaction to Fox News.

 

[vraiblonde]

Having said that, war is still a testament to the failure of diplomacy.

What passes for "diplomacy" most of the time is graft and sheer out and out blackmail. North Korea is a sterling example of this.

World leaders rarely sit down to a table and make reasonable compromises in order to keep peace. Typically one of them was being an unreasonable SOB in the first place, and now it's a matter of either paying them to behave or lighting their asses up.

If you pay them, which the UN had been doing with Saddam Hussein for 12 years with oil for food, you better keep the checks coming. Whereas if you light them up, you only have to do it once or twice and they get the message.

Want to get Iran off our backs? Toss them some money - they'll shut up. That is, until the checks stop coming. And that is not my idea of "diplomacy".

 

[Nupe2]

What passes for "diplomacy" most of the time is graft and sheer out and out blackmail. North Korea is a sterling example of this.

World leaders rarely sit down to a table and make reasonable compromises in order to keep peace. Typically one of them was being an unreasonable SOB in the first place, and now it's a matter of either paying them to behave or lighting their asses up.

If you pay them, which the UN had been doing with Saddam Hussein for 12 years with oil for food, you better keep the checks coming. Whereas if you light them up, you only have to do it once or twice and they get the message.

Want to get Iran off our backs? Toss them some money - they'll shut up. That is, until the checks stop coming. And that is not my idea of "diplomacy".

Sad but true.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sad but true.

It's not so much sad as it is pure laziness on the part of our leadership. And the population, frankly.

What we mainly disagree with in terms of war is whether we're going to pay them (like Clinton did) or kick their asses for them (like George Bush did). The rest is just talktalk.

I have absolutely no doubt that John Kerry could have achieved "peace" in Iraq and with the Palestinians, were he elected President. He'd get the payola going and - voila! - instant peace. But that money isn't his - it's mine, and yours, and every other American citizen's. And we've decided that we don't want to give it to some dictator or Islamo-fascist so he'll temporarily leave us alone, because we know that once you bribe them, you better keep it coming or you're right back where you started.

 

[SAHRAB]

Funny guy. Also, your information on federal contracting is incorrect. All contracts do not run on a fiscal year basis. Many types of contracts, especially cost reimbursement R&D contracts cross fiscal years and are funded incrementally. Also, each contracting activity, especially DOD has a formal process for the review and evaluation of proposed sole-source awards. The process is designed to determine if more than one source is available that can provide the supplies or services required by the government. There are exceptions to the normal requirements for competitions and one or more, but usually one of these exceptions must be cited as the basis for the proposed sole-source award. From all that I've read about the Halliburton award there are significant questions as to whether that process was followed as intended.

They still run on a yearly basis, sad but true. the difference is the agreement so they dont have to fire up the procurrement process again (you are actually agreeing with that).

just a FYI one of the exemptions on competition is if there isnt another company that can handle the contract. at the time (back in 1998) the only other company was a French one. not saying there isnt others now.

Obviously you didnt read Steve Kelman's piece (he was the Procurement Policymaker for the Klinton Administration), heres the Gist of it:

One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd

 

[SAHRAB]

I have absolutely no doubt that John Kerry could have achieved "peace" in Iraq and with the Palestinians, were he elected President. He'd get the payola going and - voila! - instant peace. But that money isn't his - it's mine, and yours, and every other American citizen's. And we've decided that we don't want to give it to some dictator or Islamo-fascist so he'll temporarily leave us alone, because we know that once you bribe them, you better keep it coming or you're right back where you started.

So you could make the (long winded) argument that JPC is an Islamofacist? lol

 

[vraiblonde]

So you could make the (long winded) argument that JPC is an Islamofacist?

No - JPC is a government slave, like all are who receive public assistance.

I think that's why liberals tend to embrace Socialism - because they themselves don't mind being dependents who will never have a chance to achieve and better themselves, therefore they think it should be that way for everyone.

 

[duzzey1a]

So what do you guys think of those folks that camp outside military funerals with signs saying "That's what you get"? This still reminds me of post-vietnam.

 

[Nupe2]

They still run on a yearly basis, sad but true. the difference is the agreement so they dont have to fire up the procurrement process again (you are actually agreeing with that).

just a FYI one of the exemptions on competition is if there isnt another company that can handle the contract. at the time (back in 1998) the only other company was a French one. not saying there isnt others now.

Obviously you didnt read Steve Kelman's piece (he was the Procurement Policymaker for the Klinton Administration), heres the Gist of it:

Hadn't seen the Kelman article. Thanks. However I was referring to the acquisition that eventually led to the dismissal of the Procurement Chief for the Corps of Engineers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/p...=66fa92437aa25675&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Not sure what you meant regarding annual contracting. Were you referring to option contracts that are subject to review prior to exercise of the option? I was a Contracting Officer for about 20 years and most of my experience was with multi-year R&D contracting. The majority of those contracts were either CPFF or CPAF and were subject to recompetition, in most cases, at the end of the award period. Most of those were for 5 years but several lasted as long as nine years.

 

[vraiblonde]

So what do you guys think of those folks that camp outside military funerals with signs saying "That's what you get"? This still reminds me of post-vietnam.

"God Hates Your Tears"

"Die Fags"

I think it's horrifying and that Phelps guy should be shot. That is one evil SOB. He and his followers aren't anti-war protesters - they're anti-America protesters because they think the US is wrong for allowing gays to have rights in this country. They only do it at military funerals because it guarantees them a national audience.

I think the Marines should come Shock and Awe them while they're all gathered at a service member's funeral.

 

[Kerad]

"God Hates Your Tears"

"Die Fags"

I think it's horrifying and that Phelps guy should be shot. That is one evil SOB. He and his followers aren't anti-war protestors - they're anti-America protestors because they think the US is wrong for allowing gays to have rights in this country. They only do it at military funerals because it guarantees them a national audience.

I think the Marines should come Shock and Awe them while they're all gathered at a service member's funeral.

 

[Nupe2]

ditto

 

[duzzey1a]

"God Hates Your Tears"

"Die Fags"

I think it's horrifying and that Phelps guy should be shot. That is one evil SOB. He and his followers aren't anti-war protesters - they're anti-America protesters because they think the US is wrong for allowing gays to have rights in this country. They only do it at military funerals because it guarantees them a national audience.

I think the Marines should come Shock and Awe them while they're all gathered at a service member's funeral.

Personally, If I saw that going on, I would put two down range into one of those protesters azz. Maybe even three. I think that is the ultimate disrepect for any soldier to have another american use their death as a soapbox for their cause.

 

[Ken King]

Thanks for asking

So what do you guys think of those folks that camp outside military funerals with signs saying "That's what you get"? This still reminds me of post-vietnam.

What do I think of them? Well I think they are the sorriest excuses of humans that exist, fecal matter holds a higher standing for me. I cannot begin to understand how they can take the ultimate sacrifice of a fellow countryman/woman to further their agenda in an uncaring and ungrateful manner. Sacrifices, mind you, freely given to assure that these vermin maintain the ability to openly express themselves in such a disgusting fashion.

While I do understand that people might be in opposition to the undertakings of our government, and have the right to speak out against them, protesting at the funeral of a service member that did nothing more then follow the orders issued to them at the cost of their life is an abomination that should be legally prohibited. Those that chose to denigrate these heroes in this manner do not deserve to be citizens of our nation.

 

[vraiblonde]

This is one twisted dude:

The state legislature of Nebraska is a branch of the Taliban!


He was in my hometown of Lincoln, NE. WARNING: graphic and extraordinarily offensive. Plus it's a pdf file.

 

[2ndAmendment]

This is one twisted dude:

The state legislature of Nebraska is a branch of the Taliban!


He was in my hometown of Lincoln, NE. WARNING: graphic and extraordinarily offensive. Plus it's a pdf file.

I sent them a message that they have completely missed the Truth of the Bible. God does not hate people, fags or otherwise. He hates sin, all sin. He came as Jesus and died for our sins, all peoples sins, and wants us to turn from our sin and love Him through our obedience. Forgiveness is a free gift; we only need to accept it. He rose from the dead as a promise of eternal life for all who come to Him in obedience.

 

[vraiblonde]

He hates sin, all sin.

And hatred is a sin.

Phelps isn't a Christian, even though he thumps the Bible to make his "point". He's just a random sicko, using whatever justification he can for his evil behavior.

WWJD? I don't know, but I'm confident he wouldn't be raising a ruckus at funerals.