PDA

View Full Version : Cool Political Cartoon



Praxus
11 Sep 03,, 03:19
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/ConfrontingTerrorismII-X.gif

bigross86
11 Sep 03,, 09:47
Damn straight!

tw-acs
12 Sep 03,, 05:13
The concept of war on terrorism is self defeating. Terrorism is done by nations of extremists. The United States cannot declare war on a state or on a country.

The war on terrorism could be used to justify attacking foriegn countries in attempt to get the nation that is responsible for certain actions.

Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton. Halliburton was given contracts to rebuild iraq before the war in iraq. The contracts were to rebuild iraq.

This is not a war on terrorism, war is terror. This is pre emptive war. That will provoke terrorism. The terrorist organizations will grow in size as anti US sentiment grows.

The concept of war on terrorism is self defeating. In fact, it contributes to more terrorism; we intend to stop terrorism. Interesting example of cause and effect.

Who could benefit from this?

Stinger
12 Sep 03,, 16:09
Originally posted by tw-acs
The concept of war on terrorism is self defeating. Terrorism is done by nations of extremists. The United States cannot declare war on a state or on a country.

The war on terrorism could be used to justify attacking foriegn countries in attempt to get the nation that is responsible for certain actions.

Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton. Halliburton was given contracts to rebuild iraq before the war in iraq. The contracts were to rebuild iraq.

This is not a war on terrorism, war is terror. This is pre emptive war. That will provoke terrorism. The terrorist organizations will grow in size as anti US sentiment grows.

The concept of war on terrorism is self defeating. In fact, it contributes to more terrorism; we intend to stop terrorism. Interesting example of cause and effect.

Who could benefit from this? TW you may or may not be aware that I work as an estimator for a constuction company, I saw the bids that the General Contractors put out at bid time, Haliburton was low and had more minority contractor participation. Haliburton got the contracts fairly, which kinda pisses me off cause we went in with another guy.

tw-acs
12 Sep 03,, 19:20
Fairly what does that mean?
You cannot deny the connections between the president and vice president and the creation of new policies. Some of these policies use doublespeak. The government of today uses names that sound good but really are the title of something quite the opposite. The patriot act is not patriotic. THe new energy policies allow for more polllution and lower standards but have names that sound appealing to the public. The public for the most part is ignorant. They will hear patriot act and think patriotism. The government we have today in the United States requires for citizens to be skeptics and get involved in politics. If the public fails to meet there political obligations this country will fail. The people is the foundation of our system.

Praxus
12 Sep 03,, 21:25
Fairly means Haliburten asked the ammount of money which best estimated the cost of reconstruction.

Now shutup you stupid socialist.

Ironduke
12 Sep 03,, 21:47
Originally posted by Praxus
Fairly means Haliburten asked the ammount of money which best estimated the cost of reconstruction.

Now shutup you stupid socialist.
You needn't be so blunt when talking to one my friends to get your point across.

Stinger
12 Sep 03,, 21:51
Fairly means that Haliburton got the lowest over all price in at bid time. They had the LOWEST number with the most inclusions... thats how you win contracts. Unless you have a firm grasp, some experience and some proof that Haliburton cheated, on the bidding process that I'm unaware of then if I was you I would bow out of saying Haliburton got an unfair contract.

Praxus
12 Sep 03,, 22:13
ou needn't be so blunt when talking to one my friends to get your point across.

Sorry

tw-acs
16 Sep 03,, 07:50
Were any of you aware that the United States Military used to do what haliburton got contracts to do. Knowing the connection between haliburton and Cheney does not add credibility to the administration and the intent behind the giving contracts to haliburton instead of the United States Military.

Stinger
16 Sep 03,, 14:26
Are you aware that 95% or better of all construction on military posts is done by civilian contractors who are asked by the Corp of Engineers to submit their bids? In the last 4 months alone I've bid 6 different contracts at Ft. Hood alone. Most of the construction that Haliburton is beeing tasked to do is no longer routinely done my any military units, save maybe the Seebees.

tw-acs
17 Sep 03,, 01:16
Stinger

I just said that the military doesn't do these functions any more. Thus the tasks must be contracted out to civilian owned corporations like haliburton. The problem with this is haliburton bid for the contracts before the war. And the blatant connection between Cheney and haliburton. Realize that last paycheck he got from haliburton is under dispute. Why does the military no longer have units that perform these "rebuilding Iraq" functions?

Stinger
17 Sep 03,, 02:42
I'm not sure that rebuilding an enemy country ever fell to the military. US Army didn't rebuild Germany, nor the South after the Civil War... you'd be hard pressed to find a mexican who's family home recieved any kind of reconstruction from after the Mexican War, I don't think the people of Japan had anything, non base related rebuilt by the US either. You keep you 'conspiracy theory TW, I'm the one who saw the bid results after they were placed.

tw-acs
21 Sep 03,, 19:39
What justifies United States companies and corporations geting the contracts to rebuild iraq. Why don't iraqi companies get this business.

find out what new america century is and tell me what you think about that.

Most of the conservative persons on this forum have made statements about other persons intelligence level. This being said I would like to seee tehse conservative persons excerise there brains and respond

Praxus
21 Sep 03,, 20:05
What justifies United States companies and corporations geting the contracts to rebuild iraq. Why don't iraqi companies get this business.

find out what new america century is and tell me what you think about that.

Most of the conservative persons on this forum have made statements about other persons intelligence level. This being said I would like to seee tehse conservative persons excerise there brains and respond

You do relise that their country was Socialist. There is little to none private companies, let a lone ones that could do the major building required.

Yes I know what the "New American Century". This is the site...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Please tell me what is wrong with their ideas?


I just said that the military doesn't do these functions any more. Thus the tasks must be contracted out to civilian owned corporations like haliburton. The problem with this is haliburton bid for the contracts before the war. And the blatant connection between Cheney and haliburton. Realize that last paycheck he got from haliburton is under dispute. Why does the military no longer have units that perform these "rebuilding Iraq" functions?

Because the Job of the military is to secure our individual rights not to rebuild a 3rd World Country.

One last thing, please look up the companys that have the same capability of haliburtan. There are only a couple others and they are European(German and French).

tw-acs
22 Sep 03,, 18:22
Little or no companies which is it? They are going to be living in a capitalist society now becasue of the United States decisions to remove Saddam Hussien from power. If we want capitalism to succeed in this country we should let the money that is required from the reconstruction no end up in the pockets of rich U.S. business men.

At least for the construction let Iraqi's do that. I am sure U.S. banks could or will get plenty of loans from iraq.

I do not believe that the United States of America should take over the world. As of now some of the richest persons influence the government greatly and those are the persons that would benift if the ideas of the new american century were put into place.

Realize you gave no information about what you thought about New American Century. Is that becasue you cannot think?

bigross86
22 Sep 03,, 18:45
The USA isn't taking over the world, it's Bill Gates who's taking over the world...

kingfrogger
22 Sep 03,, 19:58
Okay, ummm....

First of all, which country do you live in, TW? It seems by all your anti-governmental sentiment and speaking out against our military that you'd do better outside of our borders.

Secondly, here are a few facts:
1) As Praxus stated, Iraq was under a socialist dictatorship. No private companies existed outside of Hussein's control.

Where is the huge construction workforce that has the training, equipment and materials to rebuild Iraq? It doesn't exist!!!

2) It's only fair that we rebuild Iraq. We went in and destroyed their buildings and cities, whether searching for WMDs, Saddam, or just as an excuse to blow shit up. It's over now, what's done is done, let it go.

I'd rather have American companies and workers in there rebuilding it, putting some of the money back into AMERICA's pockets than have Iraq pay themselves to do it. How much money are we supposed to be sending them now? Last I heard it was like $6 billion, if not more. We're already too far in debt; we don't need to shell out a buttload more to help out a country, then have them pay themselves to rebuild their country.

3) As for the "taking over the world," that's not going to happen, and personally I think it was an ignorant comment (don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that YOU'RE ignorant). As I just mentioned, we've got a deficit well into the TRILLIONS mark. We don't have the financial strength to take over the world. Half this country's money is tied up in diplomatic aid and loans to probably 80-90% of the rest of the world. We're not going to lend our neighbors money to better equip and develop themselves, only to BOMB THE BEJEEZUS out of them a few months later. That's asinine.

I guess that's it for now. I'm sure that all this will fall on deaf ears and there'll be some irrational rebuttal soon enough.

bigross86
22 Sep 03,, 20:29
Wow! You're a fortune teller!

(off topic: Is that a mirror in your pants, cuz I can see myself between your legs...
:D :LOL :dbanana :clap: :devil :8 :devil2 :smoke :P :angel )

Praxus
22 Sep 03,, 21:32
Little or no companies which is it? They are going to be living in a capitalist society now becasue of the United States decisions to remove Saddam Hussien from power. If we want capitalism to succeed in this country we should let the money that is required from the reconstruction no end up in the pockets of rich U.S. business men.

At least for the construction let Iraqi's do that. I am sure U.S. banks could or will get plenty of loans from iraq.

Capitalism is the name Karl Marx gave to the system of laissez faire which is French for "Let Do". In this system there is no Government intervention into the Economy. Obviously no country on this planet is [pure] Capitalist. The closet thing to it was late 19th Century America(which was also the period when the least wars in the world happened and our highest period of economic growth).

So please use the word "capitalist" corectly. They are going to be a mixed economy, where people will get pay outs from oil and there will probley be extremely heavy regulation in buisness.

They are not yet built up enough to have the capability to rebuild their country.



I do not believe that the United States of America should take over the world. As of now some of the richest persons influence the government greatly and those are the persons that would benift if the ideas of the new american century were put into place.

The "New American Century" is not about conquering the world. If you bothered to read you would find this out and that their ideas they are like most other conservitives.

Please tell me how would "conquering the world" benefit the richest people?

Why would we want to conquer the world, what possible gain would we have from it?

All it will do is exhaust our resources, it is far more profitable to trade with free countries then it is to conquer them.

Conquering the land of despots is another story.



Realize you gave no information about what you thought about New American Century. Is that becasue you cannot think?

I said "What is wrong about their ideas", that implies I agree with them. Or can you not understand that?

tw-acs
24 Sep 03,, 01:48
I wouldn't be American if I did not criticise my government. Take intro to poly sci at your local community college. You will learn why this is so.


The USA isn't taking over the world, it's Bill Gates who's taking over the world...

I agree with you bigross86.
Though Bush and Cheney have ties with corporations.
Putting them in the same boat as Bill Gates. Rich and having strong ties with corporations.

If the iraqi's are given the oppurtunity to rebuild ( droppin bombs and all sorts of other hellacious shit on them ) then rebuilding them would not force them to develop companiies. I think that we should help integrate them into a capitalistic society. Loan them money, train there workers and let them build.

sorry i forgot the ic on capitalistic

New American Century is about globalization. A corporate take over of the world. Bush and Cheney have strong ties with numerous corporations. Since they are the administration currently and the actions they have taken thus reflect the possibility of them trying to carry out globalization. I.E. U. S. corporations taking iraqi oil and being paid to rebuild them.

You say the governemnt should pay US corporations to rebuild iraq. Oh wait! who owns the corporations? Rich People? so the governemnt controlled (currently) byr rich people makes war to destroy iraq ( remove saddam ) and then pays money to rich US corporation owners.

An implied statement is not on the post. It is in fact not showing you know anything about them it is a bullshit answer.


let the hisotry go? that would make no sense. Why are we taught history in school? So we don't make the same mistakes.

Praxus
24 Sep 03,, 04:11
New American Century is about globalization. A corporate take over of the world. Bush and Cheney have strong ties with numerous corporations. Since they are the administration currently and the actions they have taken thus reflect the possibility of them trying to carry out globalization. I.E. U. S. corporations taking iraqi oil and being paid to rebuild them.

You need to look up a little history. You do relise that the people who drilled for that oil and begun to pump that oil was private American corporations. That oil was private property of American/Western Oil Companys. They have a RIGHT to that oil. The Iraqi people have no more right to that oil then I do to an Iraqi owned store in the United States.

Also as I have written Capitalism is the complete seperation of Economy and Government. What you are talking about is CRONYISM, which happens when the state has control in the economy also known as STATISM.

tw-acs
24 Sep 03,, 08:07
Where am i speaking of cronyism?

How did the American companies get there?

I am merely mentioning the connection between politicians and money.

Praxus
24 Sep 03,, 21:24
Where am i speaking of cronyism?

How did the American companies get there?

I am merely mentioning the connection between politicians and money.

That is exactly what you are discribing. You are claiming that they picked haliburten because it was Dick Cheneys company. That IS what cronyism is. That may or may not be true, but the fact remains that it is the only US company capable of doing the rebuilding.


How did the American companies get there?

They bought it, or they got permission from the previous Government to drill there. Either way it is private property of the American Companies.

tw-acs
27 Sep 03,, 03:46
They did choose that company. The reason I have a problem with this is the way in which it does not follow the general purpose of the war. That is for the good of the people as the Bush Administration has said after it justified the war fir WMD. Since the war started we have not found such WMD claimed to exist by the Bush Administration.

The last emphasis of reason we were in Iraq was to free the people of Iraq, to promote capitalism, and guide the Iraqs development. Preferably in way enjoyed by the United States.

We should loan the people of iraq money in the system of a monitored fund granted to iraqi companies or persons to promote them to grow and develop and economic system.

Different countries consist of different nations, thus having different markets respectively. The development of a new economy make take some time.

Take for example Brazil. The military government did not let the economy grow at its proper rate. Through bad policies and practices the military government decided to end its rule.

It is not wise to pressure an economy or the development of a country too much. This is a very costly process, that is a main reason we now want the UN to step in and help us so much.

If we are trying to help the people learn how to function in a society defined primarily by the state in the form of capitalism won't the people need teachers. Persons to teach iraqis this concept.

In school persons are generally only taught in depth about the current type of government that is of the current state. Thus Iraqis may need help understanding what the system change they have thus been forced into may bring for them and how to help the changed system run smoothly.

Praxus
27 Sep 03,, 14:02
They did choose that company. The reason I have a problem with this is the way in which it does not follow the general purpose of the war. That is for the good of the people as the Bush Administration has said after it justified the war fir WMD. Since the war started we have not found such WMD claimed to exist by the Bush Administration.

The last emphasis of reason we were in Iraq was to free the people of Iraq, to promote capitalism, and guide the Iraqs development. Preferably in way enjoyed by the United States.

What Bush said to justify the war is irrelivent to this conversation.



We should loan the people of iraq money in the system of a monitored fund granted to iraqi companies or persons to promote them to grow and develop and economic system.

Who is we?

Private Banks will not give loans to little dinky stores with no colateral.

The World Bank is a socialist cluster fuck, they would just screw things up.

People have this myth stuck in their head that foreign aid is what helps strugeling economies. When people think about Germany they think the Marshall Plan helped their economy. Well not really, what helped was the sweeping economic reforms in German, such as elliminating price controls, stabilizing currency, and cutting taxes.

Free Trade is and has always been better for a struggeling economy then foreign aid.

Putting them into depts with money they can't payback will never help.

What we need is to impose NO tarrifs or taxes for goods coming out of Iraq.


If we are trying to help the people learn how to function in a society defined primarily by the state in the form of capitalism won't the people need teachers. Persons to teach iraqis this concept.

The UN is made up of Socialist and Totalitarian regimes, they wouldn't know capitalism if it bit them in the ass.

tw-acs
28 Sep 03,, 03:12
The legitimacy of the US state is compromised if the US state does not help Iraq. At least to the point to raise more awareness to Bush's presidency in the case of negative feedback of the progress in Iraq.

I agree we should not borrow money to a new economy but as it grows it could act as a stimulus.

Praxus
28 Sep 03,, 03:23
Economic stimulus does not work for the long term. What you are sugesting is pretty much giving the Iraqis a cash infusion. Well this will help in the short term, in the long run it will have next to no value. What they need is an incentive to create buisnesses and openess of Iraq to outside corporation. McDonalds installing say 50 McDonalds in Iraq would create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds more jobs for people working in there. Guess what happens with the money they make, they spend it. The people they spent it with are then gonna spend that money. This cycle goes on and on. What they need is private investment, not massive ammounts of Federal Tax Dollars from Mr. Joe Schmoe tax payer.

tw-acs
01 Oct 03,, 20:22
You plan is to have foriegn corporations develop an economy in Iraq.

Where would these forign corporations get loans if needed?
Probably from the banks in the country they are based out of. That would be like McDonalds an American company.

THe probelm with your arguemnet is it keeps coming back to the same thing. You just try to come at the same topic from different angles expecting different results. That is insanity. You are saying the same thing over and over again expecting that you will get a different result one of these times.

Why you always have to fight. Why not compromise and come up with a plan of what to do instead of bashing eachother with what not to do?

Private investment? Who?

If you are talking about US tax dollars going to Iraq. Thank President George Bush and his adminsistration for getting the USA into this shit.

Its not so bad we are in Iraq. The we are #1 we dont care attitude is not going to get us anywhere. The UN is defintiely not being very responsive to BUSH's pleas for help.

I also think it is funny the administration says its safe in IRAQ. But if you listen to soldiers on the news talkign about it there you will hear things like it wont be safe here till the UN comes.

Look at the history of the USA. Presidents just dont do stuff like Bush did. He got us in all of this shit. SO defend your oh so beloved bush now.

I think this country needs to SHAVE! Get rid of that nasty BUSH!

Praxus
01 Oct 03,, 21:01
You plan is to have foriegn corporations develop an economy in Iraq.

Where would these forign corporations get loans if needed?
Probably from the banks in the country they are based out of. That would be like McDonalds an American company.

THe probelm with your arguemnet is it keeps coming back to the same thing. You just try to come at the same topic from different angles expecting different results. That is insanity. You are saying the same thing over and over again expecting that you will get a different result one of these times.

Why you always have to fight. Why not compromise and come up with a plan of what to do instead of bashing eachother with what not to do?

Private investment? Who?


My plan is nothing of the sort, you keep choosing to asume things that I have never said or even implied. I was using an example of what private investment to a country can do.

What they need is a free economy and you still have not even tryed to refute that idea, so I will take it you like the idea.

Also are you gonna sit here and say no one would invest in their Oil or Natural Gas reserves, or that no companys would put stores or buisnesses there????

tw-acs
02 Oct 03,, 06:18
If the investment does not come from foriegn entities ( corporations and individuals ) then it must come from Iraqi's. Realize the economy that is being put into place now. Does not have the ability to invest as so required to rebuild Iraq.

WHO WILL INVEST IN IRAQ?

What is your plan?

Free economy has its flaws. THere are certain areas within a countries economy, certain indutries that must be regulated to ensure ttaht these industries will exist for the people and that they shall function well.

The United States does not have a free economy. We have regulations and controls on many different aspects of the economy along with regulatory controls on certain industries. Are you promoting Iraq to have an economy like the USA? Or for them to have a FREE economy?