Profit and greed, the players!

[medicineman]

WHAT'S GOOD FOR BOEING AND HALLIBURTON GOOD FOR AMERICA?
New Data Shows How Contractors Are Cashing In On War On Terror
A World Policy Institute Special Report

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, San Sarif]</B>
Contact: Frida Berrigan, [email protected]212-229-5808, ext. 112
Michelle Ciarrocca, [email protected]212-229-5808, ext. 107
Bill Hartung, [email protected]212-229-5808, ext. 106 New York, NY, February 24th -- As a network of citizen's groups rallies today at scores of sites in the United States and around the world to denounce what organizers characterize as war profiteering by major contractors like Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin, the New York-based World Policy Institute is releasing a new analysis that documents a rapid increase in military contracts flowing to these firms as a result of the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (see Table I, below for an analysis of the Pentagon's top 10 contractors for FY 2003, the most recent year for which full statistics are available).
With the Pentagon budget at $400 billion per year and counting, plus a new Department of Homeland Security with a $40 billion per year budget, plus wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost $180 billion to date, these are lucrative times to be a military contractor," said Michelle Ciarrocca, a Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute and co-author of a new analysis on the Pentagon's top 10 contractors.

The Pentagon's "Big Three contractors -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman -- alone split over $50 billion in prime contracts among them in FY 2003, noted Ciarrocca. To put this in some perspective, Lockheed Martin's Pentagon awards, at $21.9 billion, are greater in value than the entire budget for the federal government's largest single welfare program -- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) -- which is meant to keep several million single parents and dependent children out of poverty," Ciarrocca noted. The Halliburton Factor: Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Fuel Revenue Growth
"The greatest beneficiary thus far from the Bush administration's 'war without end' approach to fighting terrorism has been Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, notes, William D. Hartung, the co-author of the Institute's new analysis and the author of a new book on war profiteering in the Bush era entitled How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy?: A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration (Nation Books/Avalon Group, 2004). Halliburton's prime contracts with the Pentagon jumped from $483 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to $3.9 billion in Fiscal year 2003, and increase of almost 700%.
The vast bulk of the $3.9 billion Halliburton received from the Pentagon in FY 2003 went for the company's work in and around Iraq and Afghanistan, including everything from building military bases, to providing meals, to doing the laundry, to maintaining military vehicles, to rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure. The $3.9 billion the company earned in 2003 doesn't include billions in new contracts that have been issued since that time for rebuilding oil infrastructure in southern Iraq or for work in other parts of the world. Halliburton has also built bases in Uzbekistan and prison camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "Anywhere you go where the U.S. Army has to deploy on short notice, Halliburton is there, working on a cost-plus contract," notes Frida Berrigan, Deputy Director of the Institute's Arms Project and a co-author of the new analysis. "The billions they have earned thus far are just the tip of the iceberg."

"The question now is whether the Pentagon and the Bush administration are willing and able to hold Halliburton accountable for the vast sums of taxpayer money that they have been entrusted with," notes Berrigan. The company's Iraq contracts have drawn fire on several fronts, from $1 per gallon overcharges for gasoline brought over the border from Kuwait; to $6.3 million in kickbacks on another Kuwaiti contract; to charging for three times as many meals as were actually served at a major army facility in Kuwait; to wasting millions on monogrammed towels and overpriced vehicle leases in one of its Kuwaiti purchasing offices. As former Halliburton purchasing officer Henry Bunting put it recently, the company's motto for its work in Iraq appears to be "don't worry about it, it's cost-plus."
"The question for the Pentagon, the White House, and the Congress is, Are they going to hold Halliburton accountable for the work they are doing in Iraq, or are they going to continue to let them take U.S. taxpayers for a ride, even as they provide shoddy support services to our troops in the field?," asked the Institute's Director, William D. Hartung. "As the government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has suggested, we need a concerted effort, comparable to the Truman Commission on war profiteering that operated during World War II, to hold firms like Halliburton accountable. Otherwise, they will continue to overcharge and under-perform. And when they get caught, they'll just fold the costs of any fines into their next cost-plus contract, with little real impact on their bottom line." (For more on Halliburton, see testimonies by William D. Hartung, Henry Bunting, and Stephen of Taxpayers of Common Sense from the recent Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing on Iraqi Contracting).
Halliburton is the best-known beneficiary of Iraq rebuilding work among the Pentagon's top contractors, but it isn't the only one. The Pentagon's number ten contractor for FY 2003, Computer Sciences Corporation, more than tripled its prime contracts from FY 2002 to FY 2003, from roughly $800 million to $2.5 billion. This brought the company from 21st on the Pentagon's list in 2002 to 10th in 2003. The bulk of CSC's growth comes from its acquisition of Dyncorps, a private military company which is engaged in everything from reforming the Iraqi justice system to providing private security to Afghan president Hamid Karzai to combating narco-traffickers and guerrillas in Colombia under contract to the U.S. government. Another fast-growing contractor in FY 2003 was the SAIC Corporation, which saw its contracts increase from $2.1 billion in FY 2002 to $2.6 billion in FY 2003. SAIC does everything from intelligence gathering to missile defense studies to Iraqi rebuilding-related work for the Pentagon. In fact, the company served as the location for a group of 150 pre-selected Iraqi exiles that the Pentagon had decided it wanted to "drop in" to key Iraqi ministries after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A Pentagon spokesperson explained that it was better to have them working out of SAIC's offices prior to the U.S. intervention because it would be awkward if they had Pentagon phone numbers.
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman: The Biggest Gainers
While companies like Halliburton and Computer Sciences Corporation experienced the fastest growth in contracts during 2003 due to their involvement in Iraq and other outposts of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, old standby Lockheed Martin experienced the greatest absolute increase, going from $17 billion to $21.9 billion in contracts between FY 2002 and FY 2003. To put this in some perspective, Lockheed Martin's increase in contracts for 2003 was greater than Halliburton's total Pentagon contract figure for the year. Lockheed Martin is present in most major lines of Pentagon business, from the Paveway GBU-12 and 16 laser-guided bomb kits that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan; to the F-22 and F-35 fighter planes ($4.7 and $4.5 billion, respectively, in the FY 2005 budget); to the radar for the Aegis Destroyer; to multiple aspects of the administration's missile defense program, which is pegged at 10.2 billion in the FY 2005 budget.
Northrop Grumman is the "new kid on the block" among the defense-industrial conglomerates. After almost being swallowed up by Lockheed Martin in the late 1990s, it bounced back with its own buying binge of major military shipyards like Newport News and space/missile defense specialist TRW. Northrop Grumman topped the $10 billion barrier for the first time in FY 2003, hitting $11.1 billion in prime contracts, up from $8.7 billion in 2002. From aircraft carriers and attack subs built at its Newport News, Virginia shipyards; to its major subcontracting role on the F/A-18E/F; to a major missile defense role via its acquisition of TRW; to its ownership of Vinnell, a private military firm that trains the Saudi National Guard and has a role in training the new Iraqi armed forces; to its role as prime contractor for the B-2 stealth bomber and the Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV); to a wide array of defense electronic systems and electronic warfare contacts; Northrop Grumman may be positioned across a fuller spectrum of military systems than virtually any of its rivals.
[/FONT]

 

[medicineman]

The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers
By Charlie Cray, AlterNet. Posted September 5, 2006.


Halliburton has become synonymous with war profiteering, but there are lots of other greedy fingers in the pie. We name names on 10 of these!

The history of American war profiteering is rife with egregious examples of incompetence, fraud, tax evasion, embezzlement, bribery and misconduct. As war historian Stuart Brandes has suggested, each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering. Iraq is no exception. From criminal mismanagement of Iraq's oil revenues to armed private security contractors operating with virtual impunity, this war has created opportunities for an appalling amount of corruption. What follows is a list of some of the worst Iraq war profiteers who have bilked American taxpayers and undermined the military's mission.
No. 1 and No. 2: CACI and Titan
In early 2005 CIA officials told the Washington Post that at least 50 percent of its estimated $40 billion budget for that year would go to private contractors, an astonishing figure that suggests that concerns raised about outsourcing intelligence have barely registered at the policymaking levels.
In 2004 the Orlando Sentinel reported on a case that illustrates what can go wrong: Titan employee Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, an Egyptian translator, was arrested for possessing classified information from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
Critics say that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are another example of how the lines can get blurred when contractors are involved in intelligence work. CACI provided a total of 36 interrogators in Iraq, including up to 10 at Abu Ghraib at any one time, according to the company. Although neither CACI, Titan or their employees have yet been charged with a crime, a leaked Army investigation implicated CACI employee Stephen Stefanowicz in the abuse of prisoners.
CACI and Titan's role at Abu Ghraib led the Center for Constitutional Rights to pursue companies and their employees in U.S. courts.
"We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to torture and abuse detainees, and did so to make more money," says Susan Burke, an attorney hired by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), whose lawsuit against the companies is proceeding into discovery before the Federal Court for the District of Columbia.
The private suits seem to have already had some effect: In September 2005 CACI announced that it would no longer do interrogation work in Iraq.
Titan, on the other hand, has so far escaped any serious consequences for its problems (in early 2005, it pleaded guilty to three felony international bribery charges and agreed to pay a record $28.5 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act penalty). The company's contract with the Army has been extended numerous times and is currently worth over $1 billion. Last year L-3 Communications bought Titan as part of its emergence as the largest corporate intelligence conglomerate in the world.
No. 3: Bechtel: precast profits
The San Francisco-based construction and engineering giant received one of the largest no-bid contracts -- worth $2.4 billion -- to help coordinate and rebuild a large part of Iraq's infrastructure. But the company's reconstruction failures range from shoddy school repairs to failing to finish a large hospital in Basra on time and within budget.
Recall that USAID chief Andrew Natsios originally touted the reconstruction as a Middle Eastern "Marshall Plan." Natsios should have known that all would not go smoothly with Bechtel in the lead: Prior to joining the Bush administration, he was chief executive of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, where he oversaw the Big Dig -- whose costs exploded from $2.6 billion to $14.6 billion under Bechtel's lead.
In July, the company's reputation for getting things done unexpectedly plummeted like a 12-ton slab of concrete when Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), released an audit of the Basra Children's Hospital Project, which was $70 million to $90 million over budget, and a year and half behind schedule. Bechtel's contract to coordinate the project was immediately cancelled.
Now that the money is running out, American officials are beginning to blame Iraqis for mismanaging their own infrastructure. But as Bowen warns, contractors like Bechtel, the CPA and other contracting agencies will only have themselves to blame for failing to train Iraqi engineers to operate these facilities (esp. water, sewage and electricity) when they leave.
No. 4: Aegis Defense Services
The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates 48,000 private security and military contractors (PMCs) are stationed in Iraq. The Pentagon's insistence on keeping a lid on military force requirements (thereby avoiding the need for a draft) is one reason for that astronomical growth, which has boosted the fortunes of the "corporate warriors" so much that observers project the industry will be a $200 billion per year business by 2010.
Yet the introduction of PMCs has put "both the military and security providers at a greater risk for injury," the General Accounting Office says, because PMCs fall outside the chain of command and do not operate under the Code of Military Justice.
George Washington University professor Deborah Avant, author of Market for Force and an expert on the industry, says that while established PMCs may act professionally, the government's willingness to contract with a few cowboy companies like Aegis -- a U.K.-based firm whose infamous founder and CEO Tim Spicer was implicated for breaking an arms embargo in Sierra Leone -- only reinforces the fear that U.S. foreign policy is being outsourced to corporate "mercenaries."
An industry insider told Avant that the $293 million contract was given despite the fact that American competitors had submitted lower bids, suggesting the government wanted to hire the foreign company to shield both sides of the transaction from accountability for any "dirty tricks."
Industry critics, including Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., say that, at a minimum, Spicer's contract suggests that government agencies have failed to conduct adequate background checks. While it's hard to say how often PMCs have committed human rights violations in Iraq, the Charlotte News-Observer reported in March that security contractors regularly shoot into civilian cars. The problem was largely ignored until a "trophy video" of security guards firing with automatic rifles at civilian cars was posted on a web site traced back to Aegis.
Although the Army's Criminal Investigation Division says no charges will be filed against Aegis or its employees, critics say that only proves how unaccountable contractors are under current laws. Since the war on terror began, just one civilian, CIA contract interrogator David A. Passaro, has been convicted for felony assault associated with interrogation tactics.
Even The International Peace Operations Association, a fledgling industry trade association that insists the industry abides by stringent codes of conduct has rejected Aegis' bid to join its ranks.
No. 5: Custer Battles
In March, Custer Battles became the first Iraq occupation contractor to be found guilty of fraud. A jury ordered the company to pay more than $10 million in damages for 37 counts of fraud, including false billing. In August, however, the judge in the case dismissed most of the charges on a technicality, ruling that since the Coalition Provisional Authority was not strictly part of the U.S. government, there is no basis for the claim under U.S. law. Custer Battles' attorney Robert Rhoad says the company's owners were "ecstatic" about the decision, adding that "there simply was no evidence of fraud or an intent to defraud."
In fact the judge's ruling stated that the company had submitted "false and fraudulently inflated invoices." He also allowed the jury's verdict to stand against the company for retaliating against the whistleblowers that originally brought the case under the False Claims Act, the law that allows citizens to initiate a private right of action to recover money on taxpayers' behalf. During the trial, retired Brig. Gen. Hugh Tant III testified that the fraud "was probably the worst I've ever seen in my 30 years in the Army."
When Tant confronted Mike Battles, one of the company's owners, with the fact that 34 of 36 trucks supplied by the firm didn't work, he responded: "You asked for trucks and we complied with our contract and it is immaterial whether the trucks were operational."

 

[medicineman]

The Custer Battles case is being watched closely by the contracting community, since many other fraud cases could hinge on the outcome. A backlog of 70 fraud cases is pending against various contractors. Who they are is anyone's guess (one case was recently settled against Halliburton subcontractor EGL for $4 million), since cases filed under the False Claims Act are sealed and prevented from moving forward until the government decides whether or not it will join the case. The means some companies accused of fraud have yet to be publicly identified, which makes it difficult for federal contracting officers to suspend or debar them from any new contracts. The U.S. Air Force moved to suspend Custer Battles from new contracts in September 2004, after the alleged fraud was revealed.
In May, however, the Wall Street Journal reported that attempts were made to bypass the suspension order by two former top Navy officials who had formed a company that purchased the remnants of Custer Battles. Meanwhile, Alan Grayson, the attorney who filed the Custer Battles case, says that because of orders passed by the CPA, Iraqis have no chance of recovering any of the $20 billion in Iraqi money used to pay U.S. contractors. The CPA effectively created a "free fraud zone," Grayson says.
No. 6: General Dynamics
Most of the big defense contractors have done well as a result of the war on terror. The five-year chart for Lockheed Martin, for instance, reveals that the company's stock has doubled in value since 2001.
Yet The Washington Post reported in July that industry analysts agree that of the large defense contractors, the one that has received the most direct benefit from the war in Iraq is General Dynamics. Much of that has to do with the fact that the company has focused its large combat systems business on supplying the Army with everything from bullets to tank shells to Stryker vehicles, which made their debut during the 2003 invasion.
In July, the Post reported that the company's profits have tripled since 9/11. That should make some people happy, including David K Heebner, a former top aide to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who was hired by General Dynamics in 1999, a year before the Stryker contract was sealed. According to Defense watchdogs at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), General Dynamics formally announced it was hiring Heebner on November 20, 1999, just one month after Shinseki announced a new "vision" to transform the Army by moving away from tracked armored vehicles toward wheeled light-armored vehicles, and more than a month prior to Heebner's official retirement date of Dec. 31, 1999.
Less than a year and a half later, Heebner was present for the rollout of the first Stryker in Alabama, where he was recognized by Shinseki for his work in the Army on the Stryker project.
Although the Pentagon's inspector general concluded from a preliminary investigation that Heebner had properly recused himself from any involvement in projects involving his prospective employer once he had been offered the job, critics say the current ethics rules are too weak.
"It's clear that the Army was leaning toward handing a multibillion-dollar contract to General Dynamics at the very time Heebner may have been in negotiations with the company for a high-paying executive position," says Jeffrey St. Clair, author of Grand Theft Pentagon, a sweeping review of war-profiteering during the "war on terror."

 

[medicineman]

Heebner's case is similar to Boeing's infamous courtship of Darlene Druyan, the Air Force acquisition officer who was eventually sentenced to nine months in prison and seven months in a halfway house for arranging a $250,000 a year job for herself on the other side of the revolving door while negotiating contracts for the Air Force that were favorable to Boeing.
This March, Heebner reported owning 33,500 shares in the company, worth over $ 4 million, along with 21,050 options.
Not everyone has been happy with the outcome of the Stryker contract. Tom Christie, the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation, sent a classified letter to Donald Rumsfeld before it was deployed in Iraq, warning that the $3 million vehicle was not ready for heavy fire. Meanwhile, the GAO warned of serious deficiencies in vehicle training provided, a concern that turned serious when soldiers accidentally drove the Stryker into the Tigris rivers. Despite public praise from top Army officials, an internal Army report leaked to the Post in March 2005 revealed that the vehicles deployed in Iraq have been plagued with inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better."
Perhaps as insurance against any flap, General Dynamics has added former Attorney General John Ashcroft to its stable of high-powered lobbyists. Working the account are Juleanna Glover Weiss, Vice President Dick Cheney's former press secretary, Lori Day Sharp, Ashcroft's former assistant, and Willie Gaynor, a former Commerce Department official who also worked for the 2004 Bush-Cheney reelection campaign.
No. 7: Nour USA Ltd.
Incorporated shortly after the war began, Nour has received $400 million in Iraq contracts, including an $80 million contract to provide oil pipeline security that critics say came through the assistance of Ahmed Chalabi, Iraq's No. 1 opportunist, who was influential in dragging the United States into the current quagmire with misleading assertions about WMDs. Chalabi has denied reports that he received a $2 million finder's fee, but other bidders on the contract point out that Nour had no prior related experience and that its bid on the oil security contract was too low to be credible. Another company consultant who hasn't denied getting paid to help out is William Cohen, the former defense secretary under President Clinton. Many Iraqis now believe that Chalabi is America's hand-picked choice to rule Iraq, despite being a wanted fugitive from justice in Jordan and despite being accused of passing classified information along to Iran. Iyad Allawi, a potential rival for power in Iraq, has publicly criticized Chalabi for creating contracts for work that he says should be the responsibility of the state.
No. 8, No. 9 and No. 10: Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Petro-imperialists
Three years into the occupation, after an evolving series of deft legal maneuvers and manipulative political appointments, the oil giants' takeover of Iraq's oil is nearly complete.
A key milestone in the process occurred in September 2004, when U.S.-appointed Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi preempted Iraq's January 2005 elections (and the subsequent drafting of the Constitution) by writing guidelines intended to form the basis of a new petroleum law. Allawi's policy would effectively exclude the government from any future involvement in oil production, while promising to privatize the Iraqi National Oil Co. Although Allawi is no longer in power, his plans heavily influenced future thinking on oil policy.
Helping the process move along are the economic hit men at BearingPoint, the consultants whose latest contract calls for "private-sector involvement in strategic sectors, including privatization, asset sales, concessions, leases and management contracts, especially those in the oil and supporting industries."
For their part, the oil industry giants have kept a relatively low profile throughout the process, lending just a few senior statesmen to the CPA, including Philip Carroll (Shell U.S., Fluor), Rob McKee (ConocoPhillips and Halliburton) and Norm Szydlowski (ChevronTexaco), the CPA's liaison to the fledgling Iraqi Oil Ministry. Greg Muttitt of U.K. nonprofit Platform says Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips are among the most ambitious of all the major oil companies in Iraq. Shell and Chevron have already signed agreements with the Iraqi government and begun to train Iraqi staff and conduct studies -- arrangements that give the companies vital access to Oil Ministry officials and geological data.
Although Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said in August that the final competition for developing Iraq's oil fields will be wide open, the preliminary arrangements will give the oil giants a distinct advantage when it comes time to bid. The relative level of interest by the big oil companies depends on their appetite for risk, and their need for reserves. Shell, for example, has performed worse than most of its peers in finding new reserves in recent years -- a fact underscored by a 2004 scandal in which the company was caught lying to its investors. At this point the key challenge to multinationals is whether they can convince the Iraqi parliament to pass a new petroleum law by the end of this year.
A key provision in the new law is a commitment to using production sharing agreements (PSAs), which will lock the government into a long-term commitment (up to 50 years) to sharing oil revenues, and restrict its right to introduce any new laws that might affect the companies' profitability. Greg Muttitt of Platform says the PSAs are designed to favor private companies at the expense of exporting governments, which is why none of the top oil producing countries in the Middle East use them. Under the new petroleum law, all new fields and some existing fields would be opened up to private companies through the use of PSAs. Since less than 20 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have already been developed, if Iraq's government commits to signing the PSAs, it could cost the country up to nearly $200 billion in lost revenues according to Muttitt, lead researcher for "Crude Designs: the Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth."
Meanwhile, in a kind of pincer movement, the parliament has begun to feel pressured from the IMF to adopt the new oil law by the end of the year as part of "conditionalities" imposed under a new debt relief agreement. Of course pressuring a country as volatile as Iraq to agree to any kind of arrangement without first allowing for legitimate parliamentary debate is fraught with peril. It is a risky way to nurture democracy in a country that already appears to be entering into a civil war.
"If misjudged -- either by denying a fair share to the regions in which oil is located, or by giving regions too much autonomy at the expense of national cohesion -- these oil decisions could fracture, and ultimately break apart, the country," Muttitt suggests. "I think this qualifys as Blood for oil"

 

[medicineman]

The Baker-Hamilton Report calls for a reduction in troop levels to 70,000 by 2008 "subject to unexpected developments." Since the guy in charge of implementing it issued more than 750 signing statements saying why he did not have to pay attention to those laws which don't happen to strike his fancy, we're rather confident in his ability to interpet the phrase "unexpected developments" a somewhat loosely. His resolution to do exactly what he wants and nothing else can be considered a bit of a forte.
But it's also important to keep in mind that American presence in Iraq is not limited to troops. Donald Rumsfeld's legacy to the Pentagon, a key factor in its gross mismanagement, was a passion for privatization that has seen many jobs formerly performed by the military outsourced to independent contractors.
The Pentagon had estimated that there were 25,000 government contractors in Iraq, but that figure has escalated dramatically and was recently revised to 100,000 (and that's not counting subcontractors). Rumsfeld's "war on the cheap" turned out not to be so cheap; there are now 10 times the number of contractors in Iraq as were there during the Persian Gulf War. If there are 140,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq, that means the number of civilian employees there — many of them doing jobs that used to be performed by military personal (who frequently trained their replacements) — is fast approaching the number of military personnel. It's also a contributing factor to the re-enlistment problem — why would someone settle for military pay if they can get six figures for doing the same job for a private company?
As Robert Greenwald's film Iraq for Sale ably demonstrated, many of these people went overseas into dangerous jobs because they thought that in doing so they were performing valuable services for the troops and supporting their country. To date 610 have died. There may be tension between military personnel who have to risk their lives to guard these much more highly paid contractors when they don't have appropriate armor themselves, but the Iraqis don't see any difference between American military or those who work for Blackwater. They're all running around their country with guns.

 

[Wavels]

Well for any one who may be interested.....here is a chart going back five years, comparing Apple Computer to Halliburton....from all of the above one would think that Halliburton’s stock would do much better than Apple....hmmm
Apple is red, Hal is blue....

 

[MightyBuddha]

Yeah people are LINING up to go over there and rebuild that sandbox. Maybe they need to incentify companies and people to go over there and work with a 50% chance of being blown up. And in the age of outsourcing work to other countries at least AMERICAN COMPANIES are doing work over there.
And oh I almost forgot... so you are telling me that companies involved in military equipment have seen huge surges and big contracts in the last few years??? Gee we haven't been fighting a war and need more planes, bombs and weapons do we?

 

[ViRedd]

After reading the thread in its entirety, I'm starting to think that the best thing we can do is disolve the corporations involved and let the couple operating the local Mom & Pop store make weapons and rebuild Iraq.

Vi

 

[medicineman]

After reading the thread in its entirety, I'm starting to think that the best thing we can do is disolve the corporations involved and let the couple operating the local Mom & Pop store make weapons and rebuild Iraq.

Vi

Your sense of humer is overflowing

 

[ViRedd]

*lol* ... glad you see the humor, Med.

Vi

 

[medicineman]

And oh I almost forgot... so you are telling me that companies involved in military equipment have seen huge surges and big contracts in the last few years??? Gee we haven't been fighting a war and need more planes, bombs and weapons do we?
__________________Duh! what have I been saying. They (Bush-Cheney) started the war for these exact reasons! Double Duh! Their friends have controlling interests in these companies, again, Duh!

 

[battosai]

wars are a constant with this country since the beginning. war pushes our economy on, covering loose ends and whatnot. the problem isnt our tactics its the mind frame. as far as trying for world dominance and being #1 world power, we're doing everything right. only ethically, its wrong. because we rape the environment and slaughter citizens. i guess the only way to make a difference is to organize pissed off citizens. maybe [CENSORED] can organize these spring and summer protests to take place in front of oil companies property. we need unity tho. and a means to help people get quickly informed on the situations and circumstances at hand. example:

penn and teller did a show on green peace. they went to an enormous rally that started passing petitions around saying that companies are using a potentially harmful chemical known as Dihydrogen monoxide and they need signatures to help get it banned. hundreds of hippies were on the roster. they claimed that this chemical is being put into the earth at alarming rates, and small amounts inhaled will kill you. dihydrogen monoxide is h2o i.e., water.

never underestimate the threat of large groups of stupid people.

right now im trying to design a website im calling 'web brain' its going to be a visual map of problems and solutions, and lead to individual forums that give information and promote action in specific areas w/ abilities to help organize. hopfully this will be in effect by the end of winter.

the point of this is a form of decentralized information sharing, with a few good heads adminstering the forums to keep it organized and readable. point to make easily find information without reading everything, and being able to get into more detail without wading through everyones 2 cents on whatever. ill update people with the progress.

 

[medicineman]

the point of this is a form of decentralized information sharing, with a few good heads adminstering the forums to keep it organized and readable. point to make easily find information without reading everything, and being able to get into more detail without wading through everyones 2 cents on whatever. ill update people with the progress. In other words, a site with your Ideas (A few good heads) limiting adverse opinions. In essence a propaganda site. Sounds kinda Orwellian. "Now heres the thing it's like this and don't nobody ask questions" Hell sign me up, I always like to know what the enemy is up to!

 

[battosai]

the point of this is a form of decentralized information sharing, with a few good heads adminstering the forums to keep it organized and readable. point to make easily find information without reading everything, and being able to get into more detail without wading through everyones 2 cents on whatever. ill update people with the progress. In other words, a site with your Ideas (A few good heads) limiting adverse opinions. In essence a propaganda site. Sounds kinda Orwellian. "Now heres the thing it's like this and don't nobody ask questions" Hell sign me up, I always like to know what the enemy is up to!

just bc i said administer doesnt mean to censor it. it means to keep it organized and readable. anyways the site would be self defeating if it did that. it needs people to interact or it wont work. and those 'few good heads' are merely people that can be trusted with an adminstrative site password to remove spam and keep comments in the right areas. people would vote on the best of the best written comments and those would be put into a get-to-the-point area for reading.

it may be true that the coffee tastes better when your not allowed to have it.. but god dammit i want my coffee.

anyways i would make it in hopes to get good things (good in my opinion) happening but the main point is so that people can go to a website get information from all sides and be able to make their own opinion. its proven, im sure, that confused people are less likely to take bold action than someone who is well informed. think of this as an opportunity to unviel the public eye from ig'nance.

so that would actually make it the only non-propaganda site.. unless the fact that im pushing for an informed nation is propaganda in itself.
[does jedi mind tricks]

believe me.......you want to learn.... its good for you.... [waves hands]

 

[medicineman]

so that would actually make it the only non-propaganda site.. unless the fact that im pushing for an informed nation is propaganda in itself.
[does jedi mind tricks]
Well, doesn't this site remind you of that ethereal site you're talkin about, we have discussions, (or tirades) about political things, post all kinds of bullshit, and try and prove the other guy wrong, isn't that what you're promoting?

 

[battosai]

so that would actually make it the only non-propaganda site.. unless the fact that im pushing for an informed nation is propaganda in itself.
[does jedi mind tricks]
Well, doesn't this site remind you of that ethereal site you're talkin about, we have discussions, (or tirades) about political things, post all kinds of bullshit, and try and prove the other guy wrong, isn't that what you're promoting?

why yes, yes it does. but it lacks a couple few features. 1 this site is probably blocked from school servers already (no school teacher could let their classroom participate on this site are you mad?). 2 it shouldnt be just a herb oriented site like this, and 3 it doesnt have that cool little feature of voting the most useful commentary into its own mose useful category. i like this site, but if this site adopted the idea i want to build, it would always come back to one thing... wanna puff?



but the idea is still a rough draft. it will be uber-kewl when its being made tho.

pardon my excitment here but i have a vision. and in this vision i see giant colas growing in my back yard and ramen shops opening up on my street. i see groups of people knocking over those plastic stone decorations and replacing it with something not mass produced. i want to see the earth pumped full of oil to improve her mileage. i wanna smoke joints with cops who actually 'serve and protect' taking that bastardized label and giving it new life that deserves respect, instead of poorly demanding it. like firefighters with guns you know. real helpful lads. be carrying groceries for old ladies n shit. ever have a cop change your tire for you in the dark and cold? me either. i want to stop typing now and do something else im sure i made a point in there. but even if all the walls of illusion are brought down, even if all conspiracy boils down to war existing to control the over population of humans, i think we'd be better to know thats the purpose than to think its something else. [wut a bold statement. that last part could be untrue]

 

[medicineman]

1 this site is probably blocked from school servers already (no school teacher could let their classroom participate on this site are you mad?). I couldn't ascribe to any site that banned the word fuck, with my limited vocabulary, I need it to express myself, as in that "fucking asshole". Now think about it, that statement leaves no doubt as to the way I feel about that person. I could wax prophetic about someone for ten sentences and never come to such a succinct description of how I feel as that "Fucking asshole", there by banning it from the young fragile minds. I Guess I'll never be allowed on your site!

 

[battosai]

1 this site is probably blocked from school servers already (no school teacher could let their classroom participate on this site are you mad?). I couldn't ascribe to any site that banned the word fuck, with my limited vocabulary, I need it to express myself, as in that "fucking asshole". Now think about it, that statement leaves no doubt as to the way I feel about that person. I could wax prophetic about someone for ten sentences and never come to such a succinct description of how I feel as that "Fucking asshole", there by banning it from the young fragile minds. I Guess I'll never be allowed on your site!

the vulgarity isnt an issue. its just this site is primarily ganj farmin and schools probably couldnt explain to parents that they are teaching them how to grow nuggets.

 

[medicineman]

the vulgarity isnt an issue. its just this site is primarily ganj farmin and schools probably couldnt explain to parents that they are teaching them how to grow nuggets. 10-4, gotcha! no nuggets, although they could teach a lot less valuable information, and do!

 

[battosai]

the vulgarity isnt an issue. its just this site is primarily ganj farmin and schools probably couldnt explain to parents that they are teaching them how to grow nuggets. 10-4, gotcha! no nuggets, although they could teach a lot less valuable information, and do!

you know teachers serving children with all the tastey meat to make big felogna sandwiches... you know the obvious