McCain gets more help from Liberty U

Parent Cafe
41

<p>garland, whatever you feel about the war in Iraq, almost every member of Congress supported it at the time. If there was an easy solution, I don’t doubt that the Dems would be putting it forward now. There isn’t one.</p>

<p>As far as tax cuts go, depending on how you look at it, they INCREASE revenue by stimulating business.</p>

42

<p>“How about September 11? Or the tulip frenzy (aka dot.com business crash)? Or the war in Iraq?”</p>

<p>And the war in Iraq has what to do with 9/11? Afganistan yes, Iraq no.</p>

43

<p>I wish people would read things more carefully. I DID NOT SAY that Iraq was directly related to September 11!!!</p>

<p>I said that our financial problems were due to the costs of 9/11, the expenses of the war and the bubble market of the dot com era. That’s it.</p>

44

<p>"As far as tax cuts go, depending on how you look at it, they INCREASE revenue by stimulating business. "</p>

<p>No matter how you look at it, more money for Halliburton means more money for Halliburton.</p>

<p>Clinton the stay.</p>

45

<p>Sometimes your posts irritate me, mini, but tonight you are funny!</p>

46

<p>Boeing has had as many cost overrun problems with the Feds as Halliburton–probably more with CONVICTIONS but in good ole Seattle, hardly ever mentioned. If Halliburton were here instead of Houston they would be considered a fine corporate citizen. (I know Boeing moved a few folks to Chicago but it’s still a Seattle company). All the bills and payments will be sorted out over time as all these types of contracts are.</p>

47

<p>Please name a few Presidents who did not use Halliburton/Bechtel to do the heavy lifting overseas. Few have their world-wide reach and according to their financials they have not made much in Iraq compared with their other businesses. The excesses will be trimmed when the final accounting is done. When your house is on fire you don’t worry much about the price of water. I am sure everyone dealing in Iraq is getting gouged all along the chain.</p>

48

<p>Sjmom–don’t expect to see me apologizing for Dems–most follow where the wind goes. I thought, and said, it was wrong then, and I have never waivered. That others who knew better,and weren’t the ones who initiated it, voted for it nevertheless, thinking it was the politic things to do, is sad and maddening, but doesn’t change who came up with the whole sad fiasco to begin with.</p>

49

<p>According to H’s 2005 operating results they netted $172 million on over $5 Billion in total Iraq contracts. That’s just over 3% profit. My firm shoots for 20% profit.</p>

50

<p>“According to H’s 2005 operating results they netted $172 million on over $5 Billion in total Iraq contracts. That’s just over 3% profit. My firm shoots for 20% profit.”</p>

<p>Ever take accounting? :)</p>

<p>Of course they made a 3% margin. Of course they did…:slight_smile: </p>

<p>Which of the big firms signed off on that finanical.</p>

51

<p>Yes, but with the new rules you best not F around.
KPMG</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s the part that is starting to bother me. As far as I can tell, OUR HOUSE is not on fire. Iraq’s house is on fire. </p>

<p>Based on the Congressional and Senate Hearings this week, the situation in Iraq is as follows:</p>

<p>A) Sunnis shooting at us because we don’t want them to shoot at Shias.</p>

<p>B) Shias shooting at us because we don’t want them to shoot at Sunnis.</p>

<p>Since we are getting no particular benefit from our involvement in Iraq, wouldn’t it make sense for us to just step back out of the line of fire and let the Shias and Sunnis go ahead and shoot at each other?</p>

53

<p>I think it is sheer cowardice to abandon the Iraqi people now. And here’s a Democrat who agrees with me. <a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20061116-090025-6608r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20061116-090025-6608r.htm&lt;/a&gt;

The Greatest Generation wasn’t great because they took the easy way out. When they are gone, I’m afraid, this county will never see their like again. We’ve lost the courage that they had.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Does it really make any difference whether we cut 'n run now? Or in three more years? Or in ten more years? Or fifty more years?</p>

<p>The end result is the same. The only difference is how much American dollars and blood we flush down the drain before the inevitable cut 'n run.</p>

<p>The only viable end-game for a stable Iraq is a Shia theocratic dictatorship. The conditions are not in place for a functional, pluralistic government and there is nothing we can do to change the conditions. We are literally caught in the crossfire between the Hatfields and the McCoys.</p>

<p>The head of the CIA put it best this week. The lack of security in Iraq has led to armed fighting by smaller and smaller subgroups battling over smaller and smaller subplots of territory to such a degree that the best and the brightest people we have in Iraq no longer even have a prayer of understanding the micro-motivations for the fighting. It is anarchy and we simply don’t have the tools to do anything about it. For all intents and purposes, there is no functional government in Iraq and a negative motivation to form one because doing so would require giving up turf.</p>

<p>If our goal is to impose stability, then we need to double or triple the size of our troop presence and occupy the country as a true territory of the United States. But, guess what? We don’t have the military manpower to do that. So, even if it made sense strategically (it doesn’t), it’s not an option.</p>

<p>IMO, our only viable end game is to go to Sistani and to Iran and say, “OK, OK, enough already. We’re going to give Iraq to you” and try to cut as much of a working relationship as we can. Don’t worry…the Shia will finish the de-Bathification of the Sunni population that we started!</p>