that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

On 2/5/10 6:49 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/01/2010 6:36 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/01/2010 4:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where
we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at
this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand
what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems
are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now
getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the
inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The
only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to
the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation,
runaway interest rates and unemployment

-----------------

oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address

sorry. my mistake

the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth.

No. I think we are reasonable to expect some results from the biggest
debt spend in the history of economics.

But you can't find $2 trillion of benefits.

Obama is ****ing away the American dream. Only the stupid believe him,
a
polished bull****er. But BS is all he has. Just jive. While he sells
Americans out to debt-government-servatude.


You sure care a lot for someone who cares so much about America that
you've
left and will never return. At least, I hope you never return.

Too bad many Americans don't think about who they vote for. Sad to say
some foreigners care more.


Too bad you're ignorant of what happened in the last national election. You
don't actually care. You certainly won't be returning.



Canuck probably moved to canada because he didn't have the funds to buy
private health insurance in the USA, and he's ****ed about it.

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:05:25 -0500, Harry
wrote:



It's cheap insurance.

Maintaining the Korean DMZ may be insurance but it sure isn't cheap.
It costs up to a million dollars a year (Iraq price) to deploy a US
soldier in a war zone. That is one of the reasons why Haliburton/KBR
and Blackwater are bargains.


Halliburton and Blackwater cost us more than they are worth. There's a
lot more than dollar "cost" when it comes to foreign policy blunders.
There's also a huge, uncontrolled "thug" element in connection with
using these damned contractors.

There are no shortage of atrocities and collateral damage incidents by
our troops. It may be politically correct to slam Blackwater but the
State department still uses them because they have a better record of
keeping diplomats alive than the military. Haliburton simply provides
logistics a lot cheaper than the military could ... unless we
reinstated the draft and even then it is debatable. The decision to
use contractors was made in the 60s ... because of cost. That was when
we had across the board increases in military pay.


You have stats to back up that statement? Military personnel have been
protecting diplomats at embassies for decades, for example.

Haliburton don't provide their services cheaper! That's completely false.
The ones currently over there are paid $100K+ compared to the regular
military salaries. We used them in the 60s, but in very limited way. Now,
it's out of control.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:10:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:05:25 -0500, Harry
wrote:



It's cheap insurance.

Maintaining the Korean DMZ may be insurance but it sure isn't cheap.
It costs up to a million dollars a year (Iraq price) to deploy a US
soldier in a war zone. That is one of the reasons why Haliburton/KBR
and Blackwater are bargains.


Halliburton and Blackwater cost us more than they are worth. There's a
lot more than dollar "cost" when it comes to foreign policy blunders.
There's also a huge, uncontrolled "thug" element in connection with
using these damned contractors.

There are no shortage of atrocities and collateral damage incidents by
our troops. It may be politically correct to slam Blackwater but the
State department still uses them because they have a better record of
keeping diplomats alive than the military. Haliburton simply provides
logistics a lot cheaper than the military could ... unless we
reinstated the draft and even then it is debatable. The decision to
use contractors was made in the 60s ... because of cost. That was when
we had across the board increases in military pay.


You have stats to back up that statement? Military personnel have been
protecting diplomats at embassies for decades, for example.

We have Marines standing at the gates but they are not really guards.
That is true at the White House too. They have civilian guards. When
Hillary goes out on the road, Blackwater (AKA Xe) escorts her.
(Google it)

You're completely wrong. The Marines are soldiers and they defend the
embassies. I have a friend who's son is one.

Just because they're still being used, doesn't make them cost-effective or
cheaper, which is your claim.


Haliburton don't provide their services cheaper! That's completely false.
The ones currently over there are paid $100K+ compared to the regular
military salaries. We used them in the 60s, but in very limited way. Now,
it's out of control.

$100k is a bargain. It costs us a cool million dollars a head for the
soldiers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. (according to CNN and
Newsweek). I agree that is somewhat a bogus number but that is also
how we get to GW spending a trillion in Iraq.
The real problem is the political cost of recruiting and deploying
another 70,000 soldiers or dealing with the 1000+ dead and 37,000+
wounded contractors. They are simply expendable assets who do not have
to come back to Dover AFB in flag draped coffins.

Not to mention their above the law mentality, which costs of even more
American lives.

Contractors really started coming on board with the end of the draft
and throughout most of the time since they have outnumbered uniformed
services.

A nice private army beholden to right wing Christians waiting for the
Rapture.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:18:10 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You have stats to back up that statement? Military personnel have been
protecting diplomats at embassies for decades, for example.

We have Marines standing at the gates but they are not really guards.
That is true at the White House too. They have civilian guards. When
Hillary goes out on the road, Blackwater (AKA Xe) escorts her.
(Google it)

You're completely wrong. The Marines are soldiers and they defend the
embassies. I have a friend who's son is one.

So you are saying there are no contract guards in embassies that are
exposed to serious threats? I suggest you look into what we hire
Blackwater for.

Never said that. The Marines defend the embassies.

I know for a fact that in the White House, the marines are just window
dressing. They have the Secret Service protecting the president and
his family and the White House Police protect the grounds.
When I was in DC the Marines didn't even have loaded guns.

White House /= Embassy

Just because they're still being used, doesn't make them cost-effective or
cheaper, which is your claim.

They are certainly cheaper, politically. Financially it is a hard case
to make either way but if we accept the numbers we hear from the left
(Bush spent a trillion in Iraq), it makes a US soldier cost us a
million a year per guy.

They're cheaper and more effective... which is a financial case as well as a
moral/legal one.

You are confusing salary with cost.
Every soldier has many tens of thousands of dollars of training,
logistic support to make him an effective fighting force in a moment's
notice and the equipment standing by to make that happen.
When he is washing dishes or scrubbing toilets all of that is going to
waste.
Your contractor stories are about combat fighters and they do make low
6 figures but 60-70% of the contractors are locals who might not even
be making as much as the soldiers, with no pensions or benefits.

There are 100K private security forces in Iraq. They're not locals.


Haliburton don't provide their services cheaper! That's completely
false.
The ones currently over there are paid $100K+ compared to the regular
military salaries. We used them in the 60s, but in very limited way.
Now,
it's out of control.

$100k is a bargain. It costs us a cool million dollars a head for the
soldiers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. (according to CNN and
Newsweek). I agree that is somewhat a bogus number but that is also
how we get to GW spending a trillion in Iraq.
The real problem is the political cost of recruiting and deploying
another 70,000 soldiers or dealing with the 1000+ dead and 37,000+
wounded contractors. They are simply expendable assets who do not have
to come back to Dover AFB in flag draped coffins.

Not to mention their above the law mentality, which costs of even more
American lives.

We have had our soldiers convicted of rape and murder. There have been
plenty of friendly fire and collateral damage incidents too. Most
don't see the light of day unless CNN gets a hold of them.
War is hell, that is the way it works. If you don't think that is
right, take my advice and get our people out of that hell hole.

Big difference... the military is subject to our laws. The contractors are
not.


Contractors really started coming on board with the end of the draft
and throughout most of the time since they have outnumbered uniformed
services.

A nice private army beholden to right wing Christians waiting for the
Rapture.

They work for Obama now.

They mostly work for the right wing Christians. They're paid by the US
gov't.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:26:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

They work for Obama now. Everyone in the executive branch who is not
US civil service serves at the pleasure of the president. If he wanted
to, he could fire them all. He knows we need them.

What does that have to do with their religion anyway?



Never heard of a contract? Obama can't "fire" them. Perhaps Congress.


Of course he can. All government contracts are written in a way that
allows the government to get out of them. They may have to give some
kind of notice if it is not "with cause" but you say they have
"cause". The president is commander in chief and these contracts are
with DoD. The real reason they can't cancel the contracts is they
don't have 60,000-70,000 extra soldiers hanging around to replace
them. It would take over a year to recruit and train that many people.
That would be a massive program in itself, like something we haven't
seen in 60 years.
The cost would far eclipse anything we might pay the contractors.

Nope. Doesn't work like that. A contract is a contract, and they would have
to be subject to due process before being "fired."

What it has to do with religion?? Give me a break. The agenda from that
group is quite clear. BW is one of the elements of that agenda.

It sounds like you are the one with the agenda. There has always be a
pretty strong association between the military and the church. Why do
you think they have chaplains in every unit?

Chaplains in the military have nothing to do with right wing religious cults
funding private armies. My "agenda" is to not let you get away with making
false assumptions turn into facts.

--
Nom=de=Plume