• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So Rand Paul called Cheney an evil war profiteer

vesper said:
Yes Rand Paul is playing politics. But while playing politics he and many forget one little important factor in regard to Cheney and Halliburton. Halliburton WAS the only damn company that had the means as far as equipment, mobility and manpower to handle the job in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Ummmm not no but HAIL no!

After Kuwait the pre-Cheney Halliburton got scraps in the rebuild of the ruined oil fields. Schlumberger got the lion's share of contracts, Halliburton started a series of lay-offs after they failed to secure contracts. (Duncan OK was the original Corporate HQ of Halliburton before moving to Houston Tx and then the Middle East.)

Post Cheney Halliburton got a huge contract they couldn't handle by themselves- they subcontracted a goodly portion out to other after taking a general contractor fee out- pure profit while others do the real work, some say substandard companies were hired to 'save' money- ie put more in Halliburton's pocket and there were 'minor' problems like electrocuted soldiers in their showers because the wiring ran under the shower tub. :roll:

There was ZERO reason for a one corporation bid, the work could have been split up among the other companies from the git-go instead of giving Halliburton control over the process. At the very least it was lazy government at it's best, at the worst a payback for Cheney's company missing out on so much of Kuwait.
 
rhinefire said:
Like Cheney Paul is a straight shooters. I like them both. If the bad guys want war then I want Cheney.
Click to expand...

LOL, no way Jose! Cheney would be the guy seeing war as a board game he is playing instead of real men dying far from family and home for Corporate America. He would be the reckless Shavetail charging after a few renegades into a box canyon ambush, ummm if he ever got the cojones to actually risk more than a paper cut in defense of 'freedom'.

Cheney is the tough guy who when his turn came to be forged in the crucible of war had 'other priorities' but later was 120% behind sending thousands of Americans into war to 'plant seeds' based on a Neo CON think tank paper. :doh

You can have him, I got ZERO use for him....
 
Fenton said:
Just trying to offer up some perspective.

Halliburton's " No bid " contracts were a issue with the easlily entertained and manipulated crowd for years under Bush.

If those people had bothered to do a bit of research instead of blindly buying into some nonsensical politically motivated rhetoric, they might have learned that LOGCAP has been around since the mid 80s.

And it only became an issue when the left wing zealots started attacking Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...

Halliburton was just the face of the problem, and you have to admit the optics couldn't be worse. CEO retires to become VP, $30+ million severance package, as VP is staunch promoter of war with Iraq, and then when we go to war, his former company gets $billions in no bid contracts. If that's not at least the 'appearance' of impropriety/corruption/crony capitalism, then I am not sure what impropriety, etc. would look like.

Are you not concerned that 'war' now means that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of companies will enjoy far higher profits, bonuses, etc. if we send our kids off to get maimed and killed in wars? There was no downside to any of those companies for going into Iraq, and many fortunes were made because we did. The incentives are just horrific. The 'military industrial complex' and the problems identified by Eisenhower decades ago are simply real. You call the people who worried about that 'easily entertained.' I'd call anyone who wasn't concerned about Halliburton and hundreds of other companies ignorant, foolish, shortsighted, and/or just plain stupid.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
When I got out of college I worked for Bechtel and at the time this kind of talk was common if I mentioned where I worked to someone. For some reason they thought there was some sort of conspiracy afoot, but they could never tell me who else the government should have hired for the job. It was just some stupid nonsense about no bid contracts and how terrible they are without even an ounce of understanding of what no bid contracts are, how they work or why they are used. They also didn't understand the relationship between Bechtel and the government and instead insisted that it was all special favors going on. They seemingly had no idea how much work went into building trust and exactly how long Bechtel has proven itself worthy to the government or the capabilities of a company like Bechtel. They thought for some reason any construction company can do what Bechtel does and didn't seem to understand how absurd that notion really was.

It was not also uncommon for the discussion to shift to Cheney and Haliburton and as you would expect all of the above problems popped up again.
Click to expand...

This post of yours was quite prescient as well as illustrative way back when you posted on page three. Right down to the no bid contract part of the conspiracy. Not surprisingly the off loading of goods from the booby hatch continues, still using the same talking points you encountered when you got out of college, today. :doh
 
vesper said:
How many died in 200l?
And with enough people sharing your attitude, no doubt it will be allowed to happen again. And who you going to point the blame at then?
Click to expand...

Bush and Cheney are gone and they allowed it to happen the first time, do you remember? CIA told Bush about threat to Mainland by Al Qeda. Germany, France, Israel, and Russia told USA about threats. USA, aka, Bush and Cheney ignored threats and 9-11 followed. Ergo, Bush and Cheney allowed it to happen. Pretty simple, really. Maybe too simple to fit a Mainstream Media tool and success story.
 
JasperL said:
Halliburton was just the face of the problem, and you have to admit the optics couldn't be worse. CEO retires to become VP, $30+ million severance package, as VP is staunch promoter of war with Iraq, and then when we go to war, his former company gets $billions in no bid contracts. If that's not at least the 'appearance' of impropriety/corruption/crony capitalism, then I am not sure what impropriety, etc. would look like.

Are you not concerned that 'war' now means that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of companies will enjoy far higher profits, bonuses, etc. if we send our kids off to get maimed and killed in wars? There was no downside to any of those companies for going into Iraq, and many fortunes were made because we did. The incentives are just horrific. The 'military industrial complex' and the problems identified by Eisenhower decades ago are simply real. You call the people who worried about that 'easily entertained.' I'd call anyone who wasn't concerned about Halliburton and hundreds of other companies ignorant, foolish, shortsighted, and/or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...


* Sigh *...

Nonsense.


From Boeing's Fighter and Support aircraft to Lockheed Martins weapon systems...and Aircraft, to the Aegis defense systems and the hundreds of others, Private Defense Contractors have been apart of our National defense for decades.

The ONLY reason people like you targeted Halliburton was because there was a Political angle.

Its why you CONTINUE to target Halliburton.

Hell yea, the Libs are easilly amused, because a quick Google search would reveall the Hundreds of Defense Contractors that we've used over the years.
 
Lachean said:
Fact: Dick Cheney's Halliburton profited from the war.

Yes, your dismissive personal attacks are baseless.
Click to expand...

Guess what, I am too. I work for a company that makes and sells the MRAP and other vehicles of war.
 
Fenton said:
From Boeing's Fighter and Support aircraft to Lockheed Martins weapon systems...and Aircraft, to the Aegis defense systems and the hundreds of others, Private Defense Contractors have been apart of our National defense for decades.
Click to expand...

Right, they have, and it's a serious problem that only the ignorant/stupid dismiss. We NEED those private contractors, but the fact that they're prosperity depends on the U.S. maintaining a $multi-hundred billion annual defense posture, along with the prosperity of hundreds of Congressional districts, tilts the country towards war, and towards maintaining a permanent war footing

The ONLY reason people like you targeted Halliburton was because there was a Political angle.

Its why you CONTINUE to target Halliburton.
Click to expand...

It's because the government directing no bid contracts to the company formerly led by the VP, which provided that VP with a severance package of more than $30 million, is as clear a (perceived, at least) conflict of interest as you'll find anywhere.


Hell yea, the Libs are easilly amused, because a quick Google search would reveall the Hundreds of Defense Contractors that we've used over the years.
Click to expand...

Did you even read what I wrote? I'll quote myself:

Are you not concerned that 'war' now means that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of companies will enjoy far higher profits, bonuses, etc. if we send our kids off to get maimed and killed in wars? There was no downside to any of those companies for going into Iraq, and many fortunes were made because we did. The incentives are just horrific. The 'military industrial complex' and the problems identified by Eisenhower decades ago are simply real. You call the people who worried about that 'easily entertained.' I'd call anyone who wasn't concerned about Halliburton and hundreds of other companies ignorant, foolish, shortsighted, and/or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

So why do I need a google search to confirm what I readily acknowledged in the post you QUOTED?
 
DaveFagan said:
Bush and Cheney are gone and they allowed it to happen the first time, do you remember? CIA told Bush about threat to Mainland by Al Qeda. Germany, France, Israel, and Russia told USA about threats. USA, aka, Bush and Cheney ignored threats and 9-11 followed. Ergo, Bush and Cheney allowed it to happen. Pretty simple, really. Maybe too simple to fit a Mainstream Media tool and success story.
Click to expand...

Or maybe your account of "how things really happened" is just a little too simple. Even in 1998 that government officials believed Osama bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States. They even wrote about it in Time magazine. Three years before they actually did. And those who did it received their Visas to enter this country under Clinton's great intelligence/security team well before Bush was even elected. And you are going to slap Bush with all the blame for ignoring one email while in office less than 7 months when the Clinton folks had been there for 8 friggin years, allowed the 1993 first Trade Center bombing to occur, knew the threats were real and still didn't take care of the problem? Why didn't Clinton put into practice tighter security in screening people entering this country when he damn well knew there was a threat? Oh wait a minute, Democrats are against profiling.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
* Sigh *...

Nonsense.


From Boeing's Fighter and Support aircraft to Lockheed Martins weapon systems...and Aircraft, to the Aegis defense systems and the hundreds of others, Private Defense Contractors have been apart of our National defense for decades.
Click to expand...

One other point, if you're an ambitious senior level military official, the path to riches is clear. Hand out fat contracts to the defense industry at every opportunity, retire, and transition into a six or seven figure job as a lobbyist, senior advisor, etc. It's fairly amazing that conservatives are dismissing the just clear conflicts and opportunities for corruption in the current set up. Unbelievable, actually, unless you just have no idea how business gets done in the country, and don't bother to read ANYTHING about how the process actually works.
 
JasperL said:
Right, they have, and it's a serious problem that only the ignorant/stupid dismiss. We NEED those private contractors, but the fact that they're prosperity depends on the U.S. maintaining a $multi-hundred billion annual defense posture, along with the prosperity of hundreds of Congressional districts, tilts the country towards war, and towards maintaining a permanent war footing



It's because the government directing no bid contracts to the company formerly led by the VP, which provided that VP with a severance package of more than $30 million, is as clear a (perceived, at least) conflict of interest as you'll find anywhere.




Did you even read what I wrote? I'll quote myself:



So why do I need a google search to confirm what I readily acknowledged in the post you QUOTED?
Click to expand...

Halliburton revieved it's first " No bid " contract during the Clinton administration, NOT the Bush administration so why weren't you people crying over Halliburton back then ?

The rest of your ridiculous rhetoric centers around the leftist narrative of the evils of the " Military Industrial Complex ".

I don't subscribe to the narrative that we go to war for profits and not defense.

I'm not that naive.
 
Fenton said:
Halliburton revieved it's first " No bid " contract during the Clinton administration, NOT the Bush administration so why weren't you people crying over Halliburton back then ?

The rest of your ridiculous rhetoric centers around the leftist narrative of the evils of the " Military Industrial Complex ".

I don't subscribe to the narrative that we go to war for profits and not defense.

I'm not that naive.
Click to expand...

First of all, Halliburton, as I said and repeated, is just a symptom of a far bigger problem. I can repeat that again if you want - they're a symptom of a far bigger problem.

Second, I'm not naive enough to believe that profits don't grease the skids to war. Mankind has been waging war for all of human history for profits, why do you think the U.S. is somehow immune? And if we ARE immune, it's because we recognize that wars are almost always waged for profit (at some level) and as a citizenry we are vigilant about the dangers. The founders were vehemently against a standing army in part for this reason and others.

I'm genuinely shocked that you see no dangers in privatizing war, and believe that the immense profits from a $trillion/year military industrial complex don't carry with them huge perverse incentives. It really makes no sense if you have the slightest grasp of how things get done in Washington. I will say the libertarians, to their credit, DO understand this. It's one of many areas where liberals and libertarians can find common ground.
 
Last edited:
All war is motivated by profit of some sort. But by private actors, for private actors? Not really.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
All war is motivated by profit of some sort. But by private actors, for private actors? Not really.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the perhaps $100 billion (or pick a number you find reasonable) in annual profits from a $trillion in spending/year associated preparing for and waging war have no effect on the decisions to go to war? I disagree. If everyone that Congressmen listen to in D.C. will profit from a war, it at a minimum removes HUGE barriers to making the decision to wage war.

Plus, a $trillion annually supports entire communities in many cases. I live near Oak Ridge - DOE and DOD are huge employers, directly and indirectly through a slew of private contractors. Area Congressmen (All of them GOPers) have an obligation almost to see that funding does NOT get cut. It would devastate the local economy to see that funding dry up and we're not unusual.
 
JasperL said:
Are you saying the perhaps $100 billion (or pick a number you find reasonable) in annual profits from a $trillion in spending/year associated preparing for and waging war have no effect on the decisions to go to war? I disagree. If everyone that Congressmen listen to in D.C. will profit from a war, it at a minimum removes HUGE barriers to making the decision to wage war.

Plus, a $trillion annually supports entire communities in many cases. I live near Oak Ridge - DOE and DOD are huge employers, directly and indirectly through a slew of private contractors. Area Congressmen (All of them GOPers) have an obligation almost to see that funding does NOT get cut. It would devastate the local economy to see that funding dry up and we're not unusual.
Click to expand...

And they're huge employers regardless of whether there's a war on or not. I'm very familiar with the way the DoD works, I've been part of the evil MIC since I was 21.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
And they're huge employers regardless of whether there's a war on or not. I'm very familiar with the way the DoD works, I've been part of the evil MIC since I was 21.
Click to expand...

Well, from about the mid 1980s, after the Reagan defense ramp ups, through the Iraq war, we spent about $300 billion (directly, not counting DOE and other defense spending in other agencies). The war ramped up the total to over $700 billion in constant dollars. That $400B/YEAR has no effect?

Graph here: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/BCA-Sequester-Chart-580.jpg

And there is nothing inherently evil about the MIC. Living her I have all kinds of friends and family working for the MIC. We need a strong defense. I'm just pointing out the perverse incentives, and can't believe that the point isn't just utterly obvious, like pointing out the sun rises in the east.
 
JasperL said:
First of all, Halliburton, as I said and repeated, is just a symptom of a far bigger problem. I can repeat that again if you want - they're a symptom of a far bigger problem.

Second, I'm not naive enough to believe that profits don't grease the skids to war. Mankind has been waging war for all of human history for profits, why do you think the U.S. is somehow immune? And if we ARE immune, it's because we recognize that wars are almost always waged for profit (at some level) and as a citizenry we are vigilant about the dangers. The founders were vehemently against a standing army in part for this reason and others.

I'm genuinely shocked that you see no dangers in privatizing war, and believe that the immense profits from a $trillion/year military industrial complex don't carry with them huge perverse incentives. It really makes no sense if you have the slightest grasp of how things get done in Washington. I will say the libertarians, to their credit, DO understand this. It's one of many areas where liberals and libertarians can find common ground.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Conservative and the Constitution strictly states that our Government should provide for the Common defense.

I'm also a Capitalist, who understands the benefits of the Free market system over a Centrally planned economy.

Kicking the private Contractors out of the Defense business based on platitudes and false narratives like " the Military Industrial Complex " would be foolish beyond comprehension.

We are a Super Power because of the innovation that grows out of our free market economy and out of our Defense Contractors ability to seek out profits in a Competitive market.

War for profit ? Plueeze....

Its a incredibly naive assessment of the overall human condition to think that Corporate profits are what motivates men to war.

Try digging into a History book and not putting the cart before the horse and realize that Man needs little incentive to kill his neighbors.

The USSR wasn't motivated by '' corporate profits " to invade Afghanistan or to start and perpetuate a Cold war with us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom