 sj |
||
|
||
BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 18 Sep 03 - 06:18 AM Amos, Your point is fully acknowledged, US air power was a crucial and deciding factor. My comments address the contention by some that the US invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban - they didn't, they assisted, they did not invade. The arrival of foreign troops in anything that could be called significant numbers was something that was negotiated with the Northern Alliance Command Council after the Taliban had been expelled from Kabul. If memory serves me correctly first troops to arrive at Baghram Airport were Royal Marines and there was much to-ing and fro-ing to establish what they could and couldn't do. They were restricted solely to within the airport perimeter and they were tasked with making the airport safe, prior to the arrival of Mohamed Karzai. Further negotiations led to that initial force being increased in size to make the road between the airport and Kabul safe. Don thanks for the links, The first is quite good and clearly shows that the TAP was a dead duck about two years before GWB came into office ("In 1998, after the U.S. bombed Al-Qaeda training camps in retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa, UNOCAL pulled out of the pipeline negotiations.") . The second, was purely an anti-Cheney rant which had almost as much to say about his "baton twirling" wife as it did about the man himself. The article seems to concentrate on the contract awarded to Halliburton prior to operations in Iraq earlier this year: "Halliburton's construction and engineering subsidiary has been paid nearly $1 billion through government contracts containing profit-guarantees, and various other contracts initiated since the company's former CEO arrived in the White House. Halliburton has built military bases in the former Soviet Union and Turkey, and it made $33 million building jail cells for terrorists at Camp X-Ray. (In all fairness, even these contracts don't make up for Cheney's major accomplishment as CEO, an acquisition which is expected to cost Halliburton upwards of $4 billion in asbestos liabilities.) Just before the Iraq war started, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton an "emergency" contract for oil fields reconstruction, which was awarded without the usual government bidding process because of said "emergency" (and despite the fact that the invasion wasn't on any particular timetable and the fact it had been in the works for a year and a half). The deal was authorized for up to $7 billion, but the Army didn't trash the country with sufficient enthusiasm to make the whole amount, and the actual size of the deal is now estimated at $600 million (assuming Halliburton survives the lawsuits from competitors who inexplicably feel that something fishy is going on here). A disappointment to be sure, but Cheney has at least two more years to make it up to them. And then there's always Syria... And Iran... And..." This subject has been discussed before on this forum, but taking a look at the correspondence on the subject we get the following: The correspondence centres around letters by Senators Waxman and Dingell to the US Army and to the GAO. Waxman Letter 26th March 2003 to the US Army: In which Waxman refers to the contract to extinguish oil field fires in Iraq. His concerns relate to the fact that there appears to be no set time limit; No set cost limit; That the contract is based on a cost plus basis. Specific issues raised by Waxman, related to, 1. Failure on the part of the administration to open the bids to competitive tendering; 2. The Army only went to Kellog Brown & Root; 3. Waxman wanted estimated costs and duration of this contract; 4. He also wanted details relating to contract structure; 5. Confirmation that the award of this contract was in compliance with Federal Laws and Regulations; 6. He wanted to know what safeguards were in place against contractor cost inflation; 7. He finally asked questions relating to the time lag between contract awarded and when it was announced. The US Army responded on 8th April 2003 as follows: A. To points 1 & 2 above Waxman was referred to a Frame Agreement Contract awarded to Halliburton in 1997/8. A contract won on the basis of competitive tender. The contract for work in Iraq in relation to oil field fires was awarded to KB&R as the US Army's existing Frame Agreement Contractor. Other considerations that influenced the Army's decision were, type of work likely to be involved, required security clearances; unnecessary duplication of effort; Timing. B. To point 3 above, Waxman was told that estimates were made (7 billion US$ and 2 years - Kuwait model) but there was no way of quantifying an exact scope of work. It was a contingency measure - hence cost plus basis of the contract (Costs + 2-5%), it could not be done any other way. (Note: Normal mark up would have been around the 10-15% level for oil-field construction operations - Dresser, who Halliburton took over in 1996 operated on a profit margin of 20%) C. Point 4 - answered short term contract on cost+ basis D. Point 5. - award of contract did comply with Federal Laws and Regulations (This statement was later backed up by the GAO). KB&R were existing Frame Agreement Contractors, that contract having been awarded after competitive tender procedures had been followed. (Note: Had Halliburton/KB&R not been awarded this work they could have sued the US Goverment for breach of that contract) E. Point 6 - By process of negotiated total estimated cost, agreed before work orders are issued. Actual costs justified and verified after which a profit margin of between 2 and 5 % is added. F. Contract award was 8.03.03; announcement was made 24.03.03 - Contract awarded because SH stated intention that Iraqi oil fields would be sabotaged in the event of US/UK military action. Announcement delayed until 24th for security reasons. Announcement prior to this might have triggered early destruction of the oil-fields by SH and the Ba'athist regime. Waxman and Dingell put the same points to the GAO and got the same answers (Waxman/Dingell letter 8.04.03) There was a further exchange of letters between Waxman and the US Army (Waxman letter 10.04.03). In this letter Waxman sought further clarification on points previously raised. Clarifications were addressed by the Army who provided greater detail. Further exchange of letters between Waxman and the Army (16.04.03) relating to reports in the Washington Post and in the Wall Street Journal. In response the Army referred the Senator to answers given in previous correspondence. After this exchange of letters the matter seems to have died a death. Round Robin Hood's barn once more - with all points covered, as they have been in my previous posts - not one challenged in detail, still, Don, your resorting to to the tactic where if you can't attack the arguement attack the man is plainly seen for what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:54 PM Sayingb the Northern Alliance overthrew the Taliban is a bit like saying the French Resistance overthrew the German occupation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:43 PM But Teribus, you aren't really offering any argument, you are just offering a denial and attaching fairly impressive quantities of "cut-and-paste" material that only vaguely relates. You mistake quantity for quality. That's been your style all along, and it is plainly seen for what it is. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:55 PM Well McGrath, I'm not sure just how effective the N.A. were, (and would have been on their own) especially since The US Govt was giving the Taliban heaps of money allegedly to stop Opium production... The French Resistance did insist on liberating Paris, when the Allied Commander (U.S. I believe!) wanted to bypass it, while the Germans put their plans to raze it to the ground into effect. Without them, many things would have been near impossible, including hiding/smuggling Allied agents and POWs. There was a recent good multi-part TV doco on DeGaulle, and his role in The Free French. He didn't want to deal with those who dealt with the Germans, but the US & Britian preferred to deal with them instead of him. Funny how the French loved him, and did't take so well to the US after the war when the story came out... Quote I was first made aware of this dislike when I first crossed the Channel to visit France. The year was 1953. The sentiment firmly expressed to me was 'We [the French and other continentals] dislike you British just a little less than we dislike the Americans.' And this just a few years after American armed forces had assisted in the liberation of France from the Nazis. Unquote from francis freespirit oxford, england in another list elsewhere just after Sep 11 2001 Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 03 - 06:05 PM I wasn't disregarding what the Resistance did. But basically it wasn't the military impact that was significant, it was that it made it possible for it to be a liberation rather than an occupation. And Iraq today shows how important that distinction can be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Sep 03 - 02:48 PM Just as the real world powers were on both sides of the American Revolutionionary War—see my Fuller link above—those same real world powers were on both sides of WWII. The capitalist “free world” was far more comfortable dealing with German collaborators and ex Nazi's who shared their social and economic goals, than they were dealing with people of principle who may not share the same vision. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Mannie Date: 20 Sep 03 - 11:39 AM Thanks Don Firth for that info. I get it now ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Sep 03 - 11:06 PM Oh Mark, you mentioned THE WAR (revolutionary!) Don't Mention THE WAR!!!! Hereunder's a little article that explains the US attitude to war, and probably why Vietnam was a disaster. Makes you wonder ... What with the staedy rate of loss of US forces in IRAQ, I wonder whether the same path will unfold.... I also recently heard about a new book due to be released in Jan 2004 called "Wars of Sorrow" or similar. Compares the US with the Roman Empire. Interesting point was how things changed as the army got more political power. Things reached the point where the Roman Empire had to be kept in a constant state of external war just to keep things pacified politically at home... Things were never the same after Julius Ceaser... Now the US has a military man standing for President soon? Oh wait, there WAS Eisenhower... maybe it's already started. ~~~~~ http://afr.com/usattack/2001/09/14/FFX5ESTFJRC.html U S U N D E R A T T A C K WASHINGTON OBSERVED Blind fury that sparks bloodlust Sep 14 2001 Peter Hartcher Nine out of 10 Americans support armed retaliation against the forces that struck New York and Washington this week, even if it means getting into a war. And a quarter of this group endorses launching military strikes immediately - without waiting to find out who is actually responsible. In the absence of a known enemy, whom and where would the US attack? Should it be random, with a pin on a map directing a hail of missiles? Or should it be racially based? Surely only an infuriated minority of rednecks would propose such blind bloodlust? Not at all. Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli has an idea for dealing with the absence of a known perpetrator. He proposed yesterday that Congress authorise the President to open "general hostilities" and assault 10 terrorist organisations around the world immediately. "Given the enormity of the attack against our country, I think we're entitled to take action against each of them," he said. This is despite the lessons of history. The last time the US launched massive and hasty missile strikes against a terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in 1998, "all we managed to do was bounce some rubble around in Afghanistan and raise the level of anti-Americanism", in the words of Milt Bearden, a former CIA agent who worked in Afghanistan. The missiles apparently killed six children, but missed bin Laden, who survived to become the prime suspect in this week's atrocities. For many in the US, the fury is so deep that it is blind and irrational. For most Americans, it is beyond the reach of civilised restraint. The Gallup poll found that 66 per cent of the US public favours armed action "even if it means that innocent people are killed". For the US at war, this fury is normal. "Once wars begin, a significant element of American public opinion supports waging them at the highest possible level of intensity," writes the US scholar Walter Russell Mead in the journal The National Interest. And the key to understanding this war frenzy, he argues, is the same key to grasping other aspects of the American popular psyche, such as the national fetish for guns. And that key is Jacksonianism - the tradition named after the sixth US president. Andrew Jackson was a Scots-Irish immigrant who was orphaned on the frontier, fought in wars against American Indians and the British, and suffered as a prisoner of war - all by the age of 15. He was an intense hater, with crazy blue eyes, fearless in battle and "mad upon his enemy", said his biographer Robert Remini. He was poorly educated, but a brilliant strategist. At the Battle of New Orleans he shattered an invading British army of 5,000 men, dealing them a staggering 2,000 casualties, with the loss of only a dozen or so of his own troops. Nicknamed Old Hickory for his wiry toughness and known by the Indians as Sharp Knife for his tactics, Jackson had no control over his temper. One of his contemporaries, Thomas Jefferson, said of him: "When I was president of the Senate, he was Senator, and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage... He is a dangerous man." But as the country's foremost war hero, he could not be denied the presidency. Jacksonianism is a populist folk culture that has its roots in the sense of identity among the Scots-Irish who settled much of the American West. It distrusts elites, favours rugged individualism, loves guns, loathes multilateralism and prizes courage. Ronald Reagan tapped it more successfully than any modern president. Understanding Jacksonianism is to understand the American attitude to war. According to Mead, "the first Jacksonian rule of war is that wars must be fought with all available force. The use of limited force is deeply repugnant." This school also draws sharp distinction between honourable and dishonourable enemies. In the case of dishonourable enemies, "all rules are off". This was the fate of the Japanese. Jacksonian America had no compunction about using the atomic bomb against civilians. Jackson's cultural heirs believe that the chief object of warfare was breaking an enemy's spirit. "It was not enough to defeat a tribe in battle; one had to pacify the tribe. "For this to happen, the war had to go to the enemy's home. The villages had to be burned, food supplies destroyed, civilians had to be killed. From the tiniest child to the most revered of the elderly sages, everyone in the enemy nation had to understand that further armed resistance to the will of the American people... was simply not an option." Mead argues that this strand of public opinion determines how America fights and wins wars, or, if it is denied, how it makes and breaks the presidents who defy it. Truman, Johnson and George Bush senior all defied the Jacksonian code by trying to wage limited war, and none survived the decision. The choking rage of Jacksonianism, now fully roused by a dishonourable enemy, will demand the ferocious and unrestrained prosecution of this next American war. And George W. Bush will defy it at his peril. As one of Jackson's intellectual heirs, General Curtis Le May, the man who dropped the atomic bomb, once said: "I'll tell you what war is. You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough, they stop fighting." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:45 AM Don, Guest Mannie asked a question asking what the Afghanistan thing was about. The answer you provided detailed the TAP pipeline project that has been a dead duck since 1998 when Unocal pulled out. TAP will not go ahead for a whole raft of reasons and is only kept "alive" by conspiracy theorists out of convenience. What Afghanistan was about was the refusal of the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan to expell Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and hand over Al-Qaeda's leaders to face charges connected with the attacks of the 11th September 2001. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:07 AM Just finished reading a book Air Battle Force by Dale Brown © 2003 Harper Collins which reveals the Jacksonian attitude to war, and lots of other things that shed light on some of what has been discussed in threads of this sort here. It's set a few years into the current future. Must have been written just before the hostilites started in Iraq. A bit sad though, it states (from memory) that the last casualties were half a dozen accidentally killed a few hours after "the war was over". The basic premise of the books in this series is that youc an win any war if you have overwhelming force. (The author is pushing the wagon of robot warplanes and "Tin Men" - fighters in battle armour with rail guns.) Of course, history has shown since even befoer the Roman empire - the Greeks (Alexander) and Babbylonians, etc, that while you may win wars with that philosophy, the "peace" afterward doesn't Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 03 - 01:30 PM Just because one side kills more than the other, no one actually wins a war.... War is a complete failure of folks to communictae and compromise and there can be no winners in failure.... Now the only war that can be won is one where mankind steps forward and makes an effort to change the mindset of out leaders. This can be achieved and must be achieved in this ever shrinking rock that we call earth or we will all be consumed by not making the effort. I've talked before about the creation of a Department of Peace, where large sums are spent to re-educate our own selves toward pro-human, pro-earth conflict resolution... Sure, this won't happen under the current adminstration because it is owned lock, stock and barrel by the military industrial complex, but when the pedulum swings back in the other direction, who knows? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 22 Sep 03 - 02:45 PM Teribus, conspiracy theories have nothing to do with it. UNOCAL ostensibly "withdrew" for a couple of reasons: 1. the Taliban put the kibosh on the deal; and 2. there was "strong pressure from human rights groups all over the world, and especially women's rights groups in the United States, appalled by the Taliban's policies on women. These groups threatened to organize a boycott of UNOCAL and brought bad press to the company." The project was put on hold until a more cooperative and acceptable regime could be established in Afghanistan, and is still on hold, pending the establishment of something vaguely resembling stability in Afghanistan. This is not going well (attention diverted to Iraq), and it may take awhile. Example:— Rockets Target Airport In Eastern Afghan ProvinceAnd this is only one of daily occurrences of this type going on in Afghanistan right now. This sort of thing doesn't make it in U.S. news media these days, but Afghanistan is not a happy country, despite its being "liberated" by the U.S. In the meantime, other entities, perhaps more friendly to the various belligerent factions in Afghanistan, are looking at the TAP pipeline with some interest. UNOCAL and the rest may actually lose out after all. Pakistan To Push For Tap Pipeline Even If India Stays OutBoth of the quoted items found on Afghani news service. Much of my information comes from overseas news services—rather that Fox News. You really should try to keep up on things. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,kj Date: 22 Sep 03 - 04:40 PM I heard today that the Us are going to sell of all the businesses in Iraq, right down to small shops etc, in order to "rebuild Iraq". PLEASE tell me this isn't true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 07:19 PM The actual story is that the puppet regime in Iraq, under the auspices of the US occupation, announced that foreign investors will be permitted to purchase up to 100% of businesses in Iraq -- excluding, (wait for it) -- oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 03 - 07:28 PM And BTW, T-Bird, since when were the Taliban defeated? Word on the streets is that there are huge sections of Afganistan that are back under Taliban influence and that warlords, sympathetic to whoever has the most to offer them, are also flexing their muscle. So much for nation building?... If this is Bush's blueprint for nation building, Iraq oughta be real interestin'... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 07:45 PM Sorry -- here's a link for my previous post. Selling off Iraq For what it's worth, on another forum I belong to, several people feel that Bush and his cabal don't care if they win the next election, because they've all made a fortune off Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:17 PM Yup, GUEST, pdc, they sure have. And note how nicely they have also redistributed so much income to the folks who were influential in their theft of democracy... The man is reduced to just going out a lieing thru his teeth on a daily basis. Listen to what he says and compare it to his actions... What a crock... But he probably won't be defeated?... Why... Because the American people have been so dumbed down that they don't have a clue about anything. In no time in the US's history have the people known so little about issues or the government... The Washington Post reported that 2 out of every 3 Americans csannopt name one Democratic Presidental hopeful... Wonder how that number satcks up against the number of folks who can name a race car driver?!?!?!?.... So who's left to vote Bush out? Not many, that's who... But, hey, you see Stroker Johnson win the UPS/Home Dpot/Wachovia/Goodyear/Lockheed Martin/Haliburton 500 yesterday on Fox? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:20 PM Bobert, don't underestimate the electorate -- those who can't name a single Dem candidate are probably non-voters anyway. And - finally - those who do vote are finally becoming roused, and so they should, because some ugly truths are finally coming to light. P.S. Betcha buck that before the end of the year, Cheney resigns from the ticket "for health reasons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:38 PM ". . . Bush and his cabal don't care if they win the next election, because they've all made a fortune off Iraq." Well, I dunno, pdc. I think that Bush and his Merry Men have a bit more in mind than merely stacking up the nickels. I just started a thread over this-a-way that suggests other motives at work. The thread may be an interesting discussion or it may turn out to be a real howling session. Time will tell. Give it a look. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:25 PM Already did, already responded, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:39 PM In his speech to the UN today, Bush called on other nations to help out in the rebuilding of Iraq. Among other irones (e.g. Iraq wouldn't need rebuilding without Bush), was "Second, Bush called for a worldwide drive to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction." Bet you anything that he would never think to include his own country, the one with the most WMDs, in that "worldwide drive." Uh-huh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 Sep 03 - 09:32 PM From my sanguine opinion, and taking into account past actions since the Spanish Phippins War, the biggest "Rogue State", with the most WMD of any country is... ? Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:40 PM And, GUEST, pdc, consider this. Bush's folks (the ones who bought his selection) are the same folks whoes daddies and grand-daddies have been bad mouthin' FDR fir programs like Social Security that they think are socialistic or communistic. Believe it or not, there is an absolute hatred by a handful of very rich and powerful people for any programs that redistribute wealth. Unfortunately the current batch of FDR hater's were all born with a sliver spoon in their big mouths but it doesn't stop thwm for throwing millions and millions of dollars to Bsuh hopin' he can bankrupt the country so the governemtn can get to the point where it just throws up its hands and says, "Sorry, folks, we ain't got no more money for no social programs" (translation: Get back in our cotton field, niggas....)... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 23 Sep 03 - 11:30 PM I know that, Bobert! I'm from Canada, and I frequently post on another forum that is full of right wing nuts, as well as a few liberals. I have a lot of fun throwing "socialist" ideas into the pot and hearing the screams from the rwn's, who think I'm trying to pick their pockets. But the funniest part is their take on Canadian same-sex marriage laws and our decriminalization of small amounts of pot. They seem to think the border is full of gays, furiously toking and blowing it at them. Hee hee! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 24 Sep 03 - 12:54 AM And on a more serious note, the CBC News reported tonight that Bush addressed the UN, telling them it is their "responsibility" to help rebuild Iraq. Then he and his entourage left, and did not listen to responses from representatives of other nations. He later reappeared for a photo-op with Kofi Annan. A thousand points of dim. What a phony hypocrite! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST Date: 24 Sep 03 - 12:57 PM Amazing the cheek of this man Bush, standing before the UN and spinning out a lot of waffle, he got the reception he deserved from the delegates, almost total silence. In stark contrast Kofi Anan`s dignified speech was greeted with loud applause, the US is sinking deeper in the mire and the UN would be wise to take heed of the French and return Iraq to its people. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST Date: 24 Sep 03 - 01:00 PM Sorry the US would be wise to take heed of the French and return Iraq to its people. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Oct 03 - 12:14 PM I find it interesting that the Guardian today lists Meacher's article with, among others, 'who shot JFK', 'crop cycles', 'alien astronauts', 'Pope thinks condoms spread AIDS' theories as conspiracy theories Wolfgang |
