because most americans just dont care that their government lies to them on a daily basis. in fact, about 30% of the population actually seems to like it. other countries dont put up with their government lying to them, but here everyone just laps it up like dogs. rembemer the riots in hungary last month? an audio tape of the prime minister saying that they lied about the economy for years was leaked and it led to riots in the streets, demanding the pm's resignation. those people are the real patriots.
"Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your goverment is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary r****ds bang their ****ing skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!" bill hicks
What's it about? I haven't a clue... I just know a bunch of incompetent greedy types are in charge... _____________ Idle Contractors Add Millions to Iraq Rebuilding By JAMES GLANZ Overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq, according to a government estimate released yesterday, leaving far less money than expected to provide the oil, water and electricity needed to improve the lives of Iraqis. The report provided the first official estimate that, in some cases, more money was being spent on housing and feeding employees, completing paperwork and providing security than on actual construction. Those overhead costs have ranged from under 20 percent to as much as 55 percent of the budgets, according to the report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. On similar projects in the United States, those costs generally run to a few percent. The highest proportion of overhead was incurred in oil-facility contracts won by KBR Inc., the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, which has frequently been challenged by critics in Congress and elsewhere. The actual costs for many projects could be even higher than the estimates, the report said, because the United States has not properly tracked how much such expenses have taken from the $18.4 billion of taxpayer-financed reconstruction approved by Congress two years ago. The report said the prime reason was not the need to provide security, though those costs have clearly risen in the perilous environment, and are a burden that both contractors and American officials routinely blame for such increases. Instead, the inspector general pointed to a simple bureaucratic flaw: the United States ordered the contractors and their equipment to Iraq and then let them sit idle for months at a time. The delay between “mobilization,” or assembling the teams in Iraq, and the start of actual construction was as long as nine months. “The government blew the whistle for these guys to go to Iraq and the meter ran,” said Jim Mitchell, a spokesman for the inspector general’s office. “The government was billed for sometimes nine months before work began.” The findings are similar to those of a growing list of inspections, audits and investigations that have concluded that the program to rebuild Iraq has often fallen short for the most mundane of reasons: poorly written contracts, ineffective or nonexistent oversight, needless project delays and egregiously poor construction practices. “This report is the latest chapter in a long, sad and expensive tale about how contracting in Iraq was more about shoveling money out the door than actually getting real results on the ground,” said Stephen Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “These contracts were to design and build important items for oil infrastructure, hospitals and education, but in some cases more than half of the money padded corporate coffers instead,” he said. Although the federal report places much of the burden for the charges squarely on the shoulders of United States officials in Baghdad, the findings varied widely over a sampling of contracts examined by auditors, from a low of under 20 percent for some companies to a high of over 55 percent. One oil contract awarded to a joint venture between Parsons, an American company, and Worley, from Australia, had overhead costs of at least 43 percent, the report found. One contract held by Parsons alone to build hospitals and prisons had overhead of at least 35 percent; in another, it was 17 percent. The lowest figure was found for certain contracts won by Lucent, at 11 percent, but the report indicates that substantial portions of the overhead in those cases could not be determined. The report did not explain why KBR’s overhead costs on those contracts — the contracts totaled about $296 million — were more than 10 percent higher than those at the other companies audited. Despite past criticism of KBR, the Army, which administers those contracts, has generally agreed to pay most of the costs claimed by the company. Melissa Norcross, a spokeswoman for KBR, said in a written reply to questions, “It is important to note that the special inspector general is not challenging any of KBR’s costs referenced in this report.” “All of these costs were incurred at the client’s direction and for the client’s benefit,” she said, referring to the Army Corps of Engineers, which is in charge of the oil contract. But a frequent Halliburton critic, Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, disputed those assurances. “It’s incomprehensible that over $160 million — more than half the value of the contract — was squandered on overhead,” Mr. Waxman said in a written statement. The majority leader of the same committee, Thomas M. Davis III, a Virginia Republican, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Parsons, Erin Kuhlman, said the United States categorized overhead and construction costs differently from contract to contract in Iraq, making it difficult to make direct comparisons. “Parsons incurred, billed and reported actual costs as directed by the government,” she said. In Iraq, where construction materials are scarce and contractors must provide security for work sites and housing for Western employees, officials have said they expect the overhead to be at least 10 percent, but the contractors and American officials have grudgingly conceded that the true costs have turned out to be higher. But even the high of 55 percent could be an underestimate, Mr. Mitchell said, because the government often did not begin tracking overhead costs for months after the companies mobilized. He added that because of the haphazard way in which the government tracked the costs, it was not possible to say how well the figures reflected overhead charges in the entire program. The report’s conclusions were drawn from $1.3 billion in contracts for which United States government overseers actually made an effort to track overhead costs, of the total of $18.4 billion set aside for reconstruction in specific supplemental funding bills for the 2006 fiscal year. When all American and Iraqi contributions are added up, various estimates for the cost of the rebuilding program range from $30 billion to $45 billion. Language included in the Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush last week, states that the inspector general’s office will halt its examination of those expenditures by October of next year. Maj. Gen. William H. McCoy, who until recently commanded the Persian Gulf region division of the Corps of Engineers, disputed some of the inspector general’s findings in a letter appended to the report. Things like “waiting for concrete to cure” could still be taking place during what seem to be periods of inactivity, General McCoy wrote, so a quiet period “does not mean that the project is not moving forward.” But many of the delays came during 2004 and took place in response to political developments in Iraq, the inspector general’s report says. The American occupation government, the Coalition Provisional Authority, mobilized many of the companies early that year. After the authority went out of existence in June 2004, handing sovereignty to the Iraqi government, top American officials then kept the companies idle for months as the officials rewrote the rebuilding plan, and ran up costs as little work was done. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/w...=1161835200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
OK here's the short of why we went to war with Iraq. Saddam is a nutcase, most people can agree on that. He killed his own people and at one point was attempting to create WMD's. This is FACT. For over a decade, he made it appear that he was continuing his research of various types of WMD's. Bush did not lie about the WMD's, he was simply wrong (if you don't count Mustard and Sarin gases as WMD's). However, most of the rest of the world thought the same thing. Yes, some countries did not agree with how we handled the issue, a few wanted to continue the diplomatic course, but all in all, nearly everyone thought Saddam had the weapons. So why would Saddam try to make himself appear to be developing weapons? I can assure you he did not think that the U.S. would invade. Saddam was afraid of Iran. By creating an image of power, Saddam kept the Iranian government out of his country. With the oil of Iraq, Iran would have almost unlimited financial resources to wage war on the "infidels." Now, if you ask most unbiased soldiers that have been to Iraq (or are currently there) they will all tell you the same thing. Most of the Iraqis are happy to have us there. There is more consistant electrical power across the country, the survival rate for most diseases have increased, and there are financial opportunities that did not exist before. They will also tell you that these "insurgents" are not primarily Iraqis. They are Iranians. The bottem line is that maybe we were wrong to be over there in the first place, and we did break Iraq's ability to defend itself, but if we leave before we fix it, Iran is going to steamroll what we've left behind.
Iraq is a mess - that's the only thing we can all agree on. The reasons for going to war are debatable and probably don't matter anymore. What does matter is two things: 1. How on earth do we get out 2. What do we do with the mess we left behind. We can't let that place turn into a lawless land and let groups like the Taliban or who knows plant roots. We know what happens then. This is a great challenge - with the entire war watching. One thing's for sure, this is America's mess...and the question is this...what will it take? Humility. We're going to have to say...ok, we made a horrible mistake. Yes...we....the American public, because we supported this war in the first place. Bush could not have gone to war without getting the public behind it. We re-elected him. And we as a nation, as democrats and republicans, must take the responsibility as Americans. This has to do as much as restoring credibility as the first step. "We made a mess, and we need the world to help us" If Bush can not do this, and he can't...we'll have to wait until 2008. But what a miserable legacy for him will it be if the Iraq withdrawl starts Jan 2009. In a way, there's no choice. Bush is the captain of a sinking ship...he may change "tactics", but he's always going to stay the course....and he will never show weakness because he's incapable of it. Unless he resigns, and Cheney resigns, we're stuck with the course even if his approval rating drops to 0 percent. Co-operation Yup, we're going to have to start co-operating with the world. On all sorts of issues. Trade, the environment, AIDs, poverty. That's the only way to re-engage and get what's really necessary to solve this mess. And that's - Muslim nations to bail us out. The irony of the situation is that Iran and Syria are the two countries who can reign in ****es and create a lasting piece. We need a multi-Islamic peacekeeping force....with troops from Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia....to take over. And that's not going to happen without a lot of groveling....and it's the only way out. So how can we do this? How do we get the world to help us? By turning on the one man who will do nothing....Bush. Yes....we have to censor Bush as a nation for this war. He's got to be the scapegoat. He's hated everywhere, and he's unwilling to budge. So we actually need our congress to investigate the reason for going to war and it's management and then censure Bush as incompetent and immoral. By doing this, the blame is placed on Bush, and America is admitting to having conducted an illegal war. Folks, our country has been tarnished...not only on the outside...but on the inside as well. Let's just hope that the night mare is almost over, and that in 08 healing can begin and with new leadership that hopefully unites the country and ends partsinship....we can get back on the right path. But before that can happen, we can't just gloss over Iraq - we need to say as a nation - this was an immoral war, and we're sorry we did it. America made a gross error. Otherwise, we'll never have any credibility as a nation...
How is this true? From the beginning, the insurgency (including the most violent groups like Zarqawi) has been heavily populated with sunni muslim insurgent groups and ethnic arabs. Given that Iranians are 99.99999% shi'ite muslims (and are not arabs) and are citizens of a shi'ite muslim theocracy, it's pretty much impossible for this to be true. In fact the pentagon itself has said that foreign fighters form only a small percentage of insurgents, and I can't think of any reason not to believe them at least on this particular aspect.
that is odd because our own intelligence states that only 4% to 10% of the "insurgents" are foreign. do you have any proof to back up those claims? and im sure there are some iranians, but you state it as if they are ALL iranians, which is wrong. from what i have read, the americans and brits have the border with iran relatively secure - it is the northern border with syria which is not well guarded - most estimates say syrians make up the biggest percentage of foreign fighters. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq " feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents. The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis are the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says "Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent)." CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence sources in the Gulf region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi. The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency. Since last August, coalition forces have detained 17,700 people in Iraq who were considered to be enemy fighters or security risks, and about 400 were foreign nationals, according to figures supplied last week by the U.S. military command handling detention operations in Iraq. The numbers represent one of the most precise measurements to date of the composition of the insurgency and suggest that some Bush administration officials have overstated the role of foreign holy warriors, or jihadists, from other Arab states. The figures also suggest that Iraq isn't as big a magnet for foreign terrorists as some administration critics have asserted. In Ramadi, where Marines have fended off coordinated attacks by hundreds of insurgents, the fighters "are all locals," says Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. "There are very few foreign fighters." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas, has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said. Top U.S. military officials here have long emphasized the influence of groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent network led by a Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. But analysts say the focus on foreign elements is also an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency in the eyes of Iraqis, by portraying it as terrorism foisted on the country by outsiders. In much of the country, including the north and center, commanders say, the insurgency is led and populated almost entirely by Iraqis, many of them former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, who do not work closely with Zarqawi's group. Commanders there say Iraqi insurgents are largely responsible for the roadside bombings, some involving armor-penetrating weapons, that have been responsible for roughly half of the U.S. combat deaths in recent months. "The foreign fighters' attacks tend to be more spectacular, but local nationals, the Saddamists, the Iraqi rejectionists, are much more problematic," said Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto, commander of the Army's 42nd Infantry Division. His unit, which lost 59 soldiers during its tour here, was based in the northern city of Tikrit, Hussein's home town, before transferring the region to the 101st Airborne Division this month.
Sam pointed the errors you made in stating that most of the insurgents were foreign fighters. They aren't. But here is something else that shows you are only partially correct about the elctricity. It is currently below pre-war levels in Baghdad. It is above prewar levels elsewhere
What is the war in Iraq about? The hubris and incompetence of George W. Bush, and the willingness of Congress, run by his party, to let him do as he wishes, abdicating their traditional role in our system of checks and balances. Keep D&D Civil.
Others seem to be asking the same question.... _______________ Grass-Roots Group of Troops Petitions Congress for Pullout From Iraq By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 25, 2006; A13 More than 100 U.S. service members have signed a rare appeal urging Congress to support the "prompt withdrawal" of all American troops and bases from Iraq, organizers said yesterday. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home," reads the statement of a small grass-roots group of active-duty military personnel and reservists that says it aims to give U.S. military members a voice in Iraq war policy. "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of American military forces and bases from Iraq," it reads. The group, which aims to collect 2,000 signatures and deliver the "Appeal for Redress" to Congress in January, is sponsored by antiwar activists including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out. The unusual appeal -- the first of its kind in the Iraq war, organizers say -- makes use of a legal protection afforded by the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act, which provides that members of the military, acting in their capacity as citizens, can send a protected communication to Congress without reprisal. "Just because you put on the uniform of our country doesn't mean you've given up your rights as a citizen," said J.E. McNeil, a lawyer for the group and executive director for the Center on Conscience & War, a Washington organization that protects the rights of conscientious objectors. But the service members can exercise this right only while off duty and out of uniform, and they must otherwise make clear they are not speaking for the military. In addition, they cannot say anything disrespectful about their commanders, including the president, McNeil said. Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto of Atlanta was the first service member to sign the appeal. "I hear discussions every day among my shipmates about the war in Iraq and how it doesn't make any sense at this point," said Hutto, who is based in Norfolk and served from September 2005 until March on a ship off Iraq's coast. "There is no victory in sight, and war is still inevitable." He said he opposes the war because of its human and economic tolls, adding that the billions of dollars should be spent on jobs and education at home. Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, served in Iraq's restive Anbar province from September 2004 until February 2005 and found his opposition to the war intensified after he returned to the United States. "I don't think any more Iraqis or Americans should die because of the U.S. occupation," he said, expressing disappointment that Iraqi elections in January 2005 did not lead to a decline in violence. "I think some things are worth fighting for, I just don't feel Iraq is one of them," said Madden, of Bellows Falls, Vt. The Quantico-based Marine plans to leave the service to attend college in January. Madden said he and Hutton met and learned of the vehicle for expressing their views to Congress when they attended a lecture at the YMCA in Norfolk by David Cortright, the author of "Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401154_pf.html
WHile I can agree to an extent I also must say Americans life in relative peace and safety I find it funny .. .that on one hand . . we say Athletes should shut up cause they make millions but we as american enjoy the greatest lifestyle in the world and we get bashed for shutting up just ironic to me but the Question IN NO OTHER COUNTRY would Ken Lay have died of natural causes after stealing millions of folx money . . . Rocket RIver
Here are the Original Posted 10 Reasons Given by the Bush Administration for Removing Hussein from Power. (Note- nowhere on the list does it link Iraq with 911-other than "praising" the attacki) White House List: Top 10 Reasons to Disarm Iraq, Depose Saddam 1. Iraq’s government openly praised the September 11th attacks on America In the aftermath of the attacks on America that killed thousands of innocents from 80 countries, Saddam Hussein said, “America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world.” 2. Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former U.S. President. 3. Saddam Hussein has an appetite for nuclear weapons In 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. Were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Iraq still employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians and retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. 4. Saddam likely possesses biological and chemical weapons United Nations' inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein’s military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. Iraq has admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. 5. Saddam’s repression of the Iraqi people In the late 1980’s Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq’s Kurdish population killing thousands. Former UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Max Van der Stoel’s report in April 1998 stated that Iraq had executed at least 1,500 people during the previous year for political reasons. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents. Saddam blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the U.N., even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and buy arms for his country. 6. Saddam’s Abuse of Children Child labor persists and there are instances of forced labor. There are widespread reports that food and medicine that could have been made available to the general public, including children, have been stockpiled in warehouses or diverted for the personal use of some government officials. Saddam has held military training camps for children between 10 and 15 years of age. 7. Violence against women Human rights organizations and opposition groups received reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody. Amnesty International reported that, in October 2000, the Iraqi Government executed dozens of women accused of prostitution. 8. Iraq has not returned prisoners In 1991, the U.N. Security Council demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. 9. Saddam possesses prohibited missiles Iraq possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can use to inflict mass death throughout the region. 10. Weapons inspectors have been shut out of Iraq for four years It's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, build, and test behind the cloak of secrecy. The first time we may be completely certain Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbids, he uses one.
I think one of the biggest reason that America has been enjoying prosperous development over so many years, is the system, which favors check and balance. I don't mean it as bash, that I don't think it's because American people are better, smarter, or more industrious than other people, but rather a good system will encourage and protect people to pursue better life. I always trust system far more than I do men; but ironically, that system was put together by a few wise and good men. With current status quo, the system itself is in danger. Therefore, I think people can't afford that "lay back, everything will take care of itself over the time" attitude.
If any of you knew why we invaded Iraq you would probably be on the executive board of the Council on Foreign Relations or an owner of a very large share of the Federal Reserve Bank. Since you are probably neither, your answers mean nothing.
IT does attempt to link Iraq with terrorism if not directly 9/11 by trying to claim that Al Qaeda people escaped from Afghanistan. Also like most of the other claims on the top 10 this one is only partially true. Al Qaeda was operating in the part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein, but by our allies the Kurds.
Yeah, nowhere, except for the #1, the very top priority, and the first thing anybody would read; The fact that it is up there shows the agenda and the attempts to mislead, unless you're saying that Saddam's schaudenfreude over September 11 is more dangerous than WMD's (whcih didn't exist, but thats another story).
