<p>Actually, CGM, you didn’t…you posted revenues, not profits…</p>
<p><a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E5D61139F93AA25754C0A9649C8B63[/url]”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E5D61139F93AA25754C0A9649C8B63</a></p>
<p>The Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s largest military contractor, said second-quarter profit more than doubled </p>
<p>the world’s largest defense contractor has checked in with profits last quarter that rocketed up 53 percent. </p>
<p>(because you missed it the first itme)</p>
<p><a href=“Publications: The Independent Institute”>Profits of U.S. Defense Contractors: Independent Institute;
interesting reading</p>
<p>US: Boeing reports $623 million profit, surge in defense revenue </p>
<p>by Dave Carpenter, Associated Press
April 28th, 2004</p>
<p>Boeing Co. rode an 18 percent surge in revenue from its defense contracting unit to a far-better-than-expected $623 million profit in the first quarter and raised its earnings estimates for 2004 and 2005.</p>
<p>
AM,
A little blast from the recent past, which you might recognize, could argue otherwise:
</p>
<p>I have a short memory, as well…not much given to lip reading.</p>
<p>and in case you want more:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/business/15144141.htm[/url]”>http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/business/15144141.htm</a></p>
<p>Raytheon Co. The nation’s fifth-largest defense contractor reported second-quarter net income jumped 54 percent, buoyed by strong military equipment sales. Waltham, Mass.-based Raytheon also said it plans to explore options for its aircraft unit, including a sale, an initial public offering or a spinoff.</p>
<p>For the latest quarter, Raytheon, maker of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles and other weapons systems, posted net income of $310 million or 69 cents per share, compared with $201 million, 44 cents per share, last year.</p>
<p>CGM what do you have against profits? Just curious. What general type of career did you choose?</p>
<p>That’s awesome. It’s wonderful, fantastic to see evidence of vibrant business. Did you see the profit increases of the other companies profiled in the article?</p>
<p>a poster here said it was hard for military contractors to make a profit, that it was tough for them, etc…she was inaccurrate</p>
<p>Isn’t it great that during a war, the companies are making all this money…I thought war was a time of sacrifice, guess just for those soldiers who die…</p>
<p>AM: Maybe I’m missing something, but most of your posts do seem to imply that the fundamentalist Christian, religious-right (whatever you want to call it) fringe is driving the Republican party. In fact, it’s that pov which has gotten me into a little tizzy now and then when I’ve read your posts.</p>
<p>Also, there are fringe elements other than the anti-war crowd in the far-left. I know this, because those elements are the ones that drove me away from the Democrats, long before the Iraq war.</p>
<p>I’m wondering: do you see any other elements in the far-left fringe besides the Cindy Sheehan types?</p>
<p>The speech by Eiseonhower is truely one of the best speeches I have ever read, and he was a Republican, and in the Military</p>
<p>if you haven’t read it, do yourslef a favor, and do so…he knew from where he spoke…</p>
<p>Ah, yes, CGM, Eisenhower was a bright fellow. He was also a Republican. You should think about that.</p>
<p>
I can’t show you a link between 9/11 and UBL but there are Iraq-UBL links:</p>
<p>
I love the phrase “boogie to Baghdad”, don’t you Originaloog?</p>
<p>In my last comment, I meant to say that “I won’t show you a link between 9/11 and UBL” instead of “I can’t show you a link”. It is undisputed that UBL was involved in and responsible for 9/11. I assume that Originaloog intended to say there is no link between 9/11 and Saddam or between UBL and Saddam. My response was directed solely at the issue of a link between UBL and Saddam.</p>
<p>CGM I’ll try to find a link when I have time, but the number of defense contractors is greatly reduced from what it was in the 80’s and early 90’s. I know from first hand experience. There are, of course, some very large companies remaining and I’m glad they’re profitable. The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.</p>
<p>I’d echo the question, “What’s wrong with profit?” Capitalism is the only economic system that works, in my opinion. Socialism doesn’t work, because people aren’t generally motivated on strictly altruistic lines. Do you think any of us would work as hard as we do if we were taxed 50% of our income, as has been the case in other countries?</p>
<p>mini stated. “But if the American people were duped, the Democrats were the “lead dupees”. If that is true, how could you ever trust them to govern?”</p>
<p>I doubt the Dems would preside over a Homeland Security department which would include on their list of possible terrorist targets a petting zoo and popcorn factory in Indiana while omitting the Statue of Liberty and the NYC subway system. ;-)</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958</a></p>
<p>uh huh</p>
<p>– A scene where former National Security advisor Sandy Berger pulls the plug on a clear chance to take out Osama Bin Laden. According to the 9/11 Commission report, this never happened.</p>
<p>– A scene where Madeleine Albright overrules military commanders and insists on informing the Pakistanis about a missile strike on a suspected Bin Laden hideout. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, this never happened.</p>
<p>– A scene indicating Bush demanded aggressive action after receiving the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” According to Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 commission, this never happened.</p>
<p>Lots of conservantives had problems with some of the “facts” in the drama…but heck…so long as the director denies he made up stuff…we should take him at it word…</p>
<p>Don’t talk with your mouth full, CGM. Try commenting on the actual article–see if you can add something new to the conversation.</p>
<p>That was unncessarily rude, driver. Even for you.</p>
<p>Nowrasteh states "I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal–to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. "</p>
<p>And CGM’s list refutes that. </p>
<p>I’m not interested in debating this, just can’t stand to see you sling mud gratuitously.</p>
<p>Mea culpa. A breakdown in fire-discipline, on my part.</p>
<p>I thought it was interesting to hear the writer’s viewpoint, after his trip through the Clintonian gauntlet of “gratuitous mud-slinging.” I should not have allowed myself to be provoked by yet another unanalyzed regurgitation of Clintonian talking points.</p>
<p>Anyone have any thoughts of their own on the link DRJ4 provided?</p>
<p>There was practically nothing interesting in that article, except for the author protesting that he had worked with lefties before, and that he should not have been characterized as a politically conservative Muslim when he isn’t. No defense at all of the things that people (including people very hostile to Clinton et al.) considered recklessly inaccurate, the big ones being the first two cited by CGM.</p>