Yeah... too bad. Things like that happen when you globalize. Open doors, open trade (nafta, gatt, cafta, ftaa, etc.,...). Jobs go away, foreigners walk in.

From something I submitted to some op-ed's, SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE 'WAR' STARTED:

I’ve just heard another person say [he’s] glad our troops are defending our freedom.

Our troops? They ARE Americans, but…

I don’t know if they’re our troops or not. Bill Clinton signed PDD 25 during his first administration, giving command of OUR American troops, to the UN. Not NATO, but the UN. This is an abridgement of the Constitution of the United States of America. Some US soldiers are facing courts martial for refusing to submit to these foreign commanders too. But that’s another issue.

Defending our freedom? Who is trying to take away our freedom? Saddam Hussein? No. He was not spiritually inspired - he was materialistic, and was totally happy in his own little country, and would not do anything to incur our wrath and disrupt his personal machine. Yeah, he tried totake overa neighbor 10 years ago, but he wouldn't try that stunt again.bin-Laden? I don’t think so. Let us say for the sake of an argument thatany bad countryhad a dozen or so nuclear- or biological agent- tipped ICBMs that he could have launched at the U. S. We have satellites in orbit that can see an ICBM light up in a silo even before it leaves the dirt. We also have surface to air, and air to air defense capabilities to thwart any such action.

Regardless of how evil he might have been, he wasn’t such a fool that he would have attempted such foolishness, having incurred the wrath of [restrained] military action 10 years before. In fact, leaders of no nation would attack the U. S. Only stateless terrorists would conduct such acts without fear of reprisal. So why are our troops overseas? Let’s call their purpose ‘the war on terror’. Well, that argument doesn’t hold water either.

And here’s why.

When we get a cold, over 99% of the time it is from a bacteria or virus that we have had in our system for months, if not years. This is called a ‘sub-clinical infection’ - so called because the infection did not cause a problem. When it does get to the point that our body cannot keep it in check, it becomes a ‘clinical’ infection. When we get sick (09/11/01), we don’t extract our bodies’ defense mechanisms to sterilize our environment. We take medicine.

The ‘world body’ is full of these terrorist pathogens. They will be with us until the end of time. A wise man named Gamaliel once told persecutors of Christians that if a cause is of men, the cause will die when the men die. If a cause is spiritual, it will NOT die when the men-leaders die, like bin-Laden. A spiritual cause can’t be pacified with money, or any material thing, either.

So why are our troops trying to destroy something that will never go away? For humanitarian reasons? No. No politician does anything unless there’s something in it for him. Like money.

Our defense contractors want new contracts. They, and the ripple effects they create when they are awarded new contracts, are a driving force on Wall Street. And most of us don’t live on Wall Street. If your money does live there, you still will not get returns on your investment dollars equal to what you’ve paid in taxes, that are being spent on the war on terror. But to a few contractors, that means all the old weapons will be used up. Unfortunately, a few troops get used up with them. In Washington, that doesn’t matter. There are more politicians than doctors.

Let’s bring the troops home, and stop spending those tax dollars. And take our medicine, too.

Solution??? Isolationism. I've said it for many years... Then, the other night, I saw it was written 3,000 years ago (current application in brackets)...

Therefore he [the leader]said unto Judah [the colonists], Let us build these cities [America], and make about them walls, and towers, gates, and bars, while the land is yet before us [all the way to the Pacific]; because we have sought the LORD our God, we have sought him, and he hath given us rest [peace/security]on every side. So they built and prospered.

II Chronicles, chap 14 v 7

 

Hmmmm.............Let's just agree to disagree. You've touched on a few different issues here, and it would take some time to address each in turn. Not that I don't believe my "Opinion" or your's is not worthy, I just choose not to debate it here.
After all is said and done, you have the right to voice, I just reservemy right, not to.
Ain't America great![sm=americanasmiley.gif]

PS
Since I have thrown my hat in the ring for president, I would gladly voice my opinion at a personal level, in a PM, but I won't drag CF through the muck of a presidential debate.
( My wife says dinner is ready, if I want to eat, I better get movin'. Bye! )

 

How come?

Debate is good, as long as it is civil. It makes people think!

What do you not agree with?

That the 'war' is not about money for defense contractors?

Here's a little more fodder about your tax bucks gettin' back into the hands of the defense contractors, who contributed to the election campaigns of the politicians... (and if you have high blood pressure, DO NOT READ THIS; for others of you, it might be over your heads)

Inside a War-Time Contract[/align]A timeline of Fuel Distribution Task Order 0005[/align]
By André Verlöy
WASHINGTON, July 7, 2004 — Over a period of six months, the contracted value of one Iraqi task order of Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root grew by a multiple of 36 and was modified 21 times, according to previously classified documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

The task order, which was part of the March 8, 2003, no-bid Iraqi oil restoration contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers to KBR, increased from its original ceiling of $24 million to $887.37 million. Under task order 0005, which originally had a performance period of 90 days, KBR was responsible for importing fuel to Iraq. KBR did not break the $7 billion ceiling that had been specified for the sole-source contract, but the frequent modifications to the task order, which lays out specific work requirements under the contract, have some questioning the process.

The General Accounting Office, which did not specifically investigate the KBR oil contract, expressed concerns about revisions to contracts and task orders for work in Iraq. "Task orders were frequently revised. These revisions generated a significant amount of rework for the contractor and the contracting officers. Additionally, time spent reviewing revisions to the task orders is time that is not available for other oversight activities," David M. Walker, the comptroller of the General Accounting Office, told a June 15 Congressional hearing on contracting and the rebuilding of Iraq. "While operational considerations may have driven some of these changes, we believe others were more likely to have resulted from ineffective planning."

Dan Guttman, a government contracting expert who serves as a consultant to the Center for Public Integrity, said he understands the need for flexibility, but that it should also apply to oversight. "Where urgency is used to justify an order-of-magnitude increase in the costs of a single contract task only months after the task was assigned, officials must be able to show the President, the Congress and the public that the change reflects the legitimate exigencies of emergency, and not failure of planning or contractor oversight," Guttman said.

Lu P. Christie, a spokesman for the Army Corps, told the Center that the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and the Coalition Provisional Authority "defined the requirements and approved the funds. The $24 million and the 90 day performance period were based on an estimate of how much money and time it would take during which benzene and LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] would have to be imported to meet domestic needs on a temporary basis. The expectation was that the refineries would be working again in thirty days and be able to meet demands soon after."

The contract KBR received on March 8—contract DACA63-03-D-0005—had a ceiling of $7 billion and would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling. The company did work for just over $2.5 billion, and no additional task orders are being added to the contract, according to the Army Corps of Engineers.

On Oct. 29, 2003, the Center for Public Integrity filed suit against the Army Corps for failure to fully and promptly respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. During the course of the Center's lawsuit against the Army Corps, the agency decided to declassify the KBR oil services contract and released a copy to the Center.

Task order 0005 provides insight into the way contracts can increase or decrease in value in a short time period. On May 4, 2003, the Army Corps expected KBR to complete all work on task order 0005 within 90 days and not exceed $24 million. The Statement of Work requires the company to develop plans and project schedules "showing each activity and duration and estimated costs." After submitting these schedules within a week of receiving the task order, the contractor is required to send weekly updates and work scheduled for the next week. Three weeks after being awarded, the ceiling of $24 million was reached. Another 20 modifications later and the task order was worth nearly $900 million. After that, task orders 0007 through 0010, totaling up to $619.8 million, were issued for work apparently identical to task order 005.
[align=center][/align]
Christie denied that the increases were arbitrary. "Sabotage and looting increased both the funding and the time required. The level of sabotage and looting were significant and continued over time—both to the oil infrastructure and to the electrical system upon which the oil system depended," Christie said. "As MOO/ORHA/CPA defined new requirements and approved funding for those requirements, the task order amounts were adjusted."

Halliburton, the parent company of KBR, has come under scrutiny because of allegations of overcharging on food service and fuel distribution, poor management and close ties to the administration. In June 2004, Time magazine reported that a March 5, 2003, e-mail written by an Army Corps official referred to the awarding of the oil restoration contract as having been "coordinated" with Vice President Richard Cheney's office, an allegation that was denied by the vice president's spokesman.

Two audit reports from the Defense Contract Audit Agency on Jan. 13 and May 13 found several deficiencies in KBR's billing system. As a result, KBR is required to "provide all billings to DCAA for provisional approval prior to submission for payment." The agency is withholding $186 million in payments for food service until KBR provides additional data showing that the meals billed actually were provided, according to congressional testimony by William H. Reed, the director of DCAA.

[i]The Pentagon's Inspector General also launched a criminal investigation in February 2004 into whether KBR overcharged the government while it was importing fuel from Kuwait to Iraq. Patrice Mingo, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, told the Center that the company has not received an official notification of an investigation by DOD's IG office. A Pentagon spokeswoman said the investigation is on-going. In a February press release the company said it welcomes a review of all its government contracts. "This is a step toward resolution of the issue. In the current political environment, it is expected," Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said. According to media reports, initial findings by Pentagon auditors allege that KBR overcharged the<

 

I don't dispute the "money" issue, it is general knowledge for those who will seek out the info. But, that is only one aspect of the reasoning as to why we have gotten involved.
Like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. One had ahold ofa leg, another the tail, and the third the trunk. They gave completely different views as to what an elephant looked like. My meaning is, ya have ta look at the whole picture to really see the jist of what is taking place, and why. A global view, if you will.

 

Don't ya think we oughtta' make sure our own house is safe? Take some medicine maybe?

Sure don't seem wise to me to take our antibodies out of our blood to try to kill the germs on the outside, when the only bad ones are the ones inside your body.

The doc says don't scratch poison ivy - you'll make it spread. Even if you don't spread it, you'll make it bleed and ooze.

I'm not concerned each dayabout dying at the hands of a terrorist. If the troops came home today, I would not be concerned tomorrow about dyingat the hands of a terrorist. Not today, tomorrow,or before the attacks.

 

Forums are kinda' quiet now there, c3... (as is a pc tech forum I watch too).

I think ya' oughtta' come back with some points you disagree with, at least to keep some interaction goin' here...

 

Pretty limited interaction, since you and I are the only ones whoare posting on this thread.

Understand this, these are points that I want to make clear, right from the git go.......
Anything I will say, is strickly my opinion. I feel no need to convert anyone to my way of thinking. Nor will I allow others to diswade me from my veiws. Pretty narrow minded of me, yes, but I feel the way I do , due to a lifetime of watching situations evolve, and studying the past results of certain actions.
If the issues we discuss can be reasonably brought forth, with no discord toward one another, I have no problem with an inteligent exchange.
Other wise, I will not continue.

Agreed?

 

Sure! As long as you see it MY way!

Really tho', if someone is clear about their beliefs, or their opinions, they'll get my respect, even if they are atthe opposite extreme from how I see it.The only ones who inflame me are the fence-sitters, the follow-the-crowd types, and the ones who speed behind another [bold] speeder, and try to be sneaky about it (without being bold themselves).

... and about two months ago, on I-40 near Greensboro, I saw one of those types pulled over. He had just passed me 10 minutes before, around 80+ mph, right on another's tail, also doin' 80+. Thought he was slick."That's too bad there, buddy..."

 

Since it's fresh on my mind, I'll address the "Bold" speeder.
I'll cruise at around 70, and when someone blows by, I'll give them about a 1 mile lead and run on up to match their speed, still holding the gap. I let them run interference. If "Smokey" takes them out, I'll drop back to posted speed and wait for another "Bold" speeder.Saves on the expence of a radar detector and tickets.

I'm formulating, (gathering my thoughts),my veiws on the issue of "isolationism", and will post it in the next day or so. I want to be concise about this issue, and will not rush to a responce. So, bare with me.

 

Isolation….
Throughout history, man has tried various types of “Isolationism” to protect from outside forces. Jericho had a great wall, they were conquered. The Chinese and their Great Wall, the Mongols still invaded. The English and their castles with moats, the Norsemen still invaded. (check out the Saxon Wars, there are no true “Englishmen” anymore)

If we had kept to ourselves during WWI, the Huns would have overrun Europe. If we had stayed home during WWII, the Germans would have most certainly taken England, Western Asia, and Africa. Most certainly developed the atom bomb, high tech rocketry, and invadedour east coast. The Japanese would have invaded the West coast, and the Germans and Japanese would have “had it out” in the Mid-west. With the Germans having “The Bomb”, they would have beaten the Japanese and taken control of the entire North American continent. Hitler would have realized his dream for world domination.

Those who defected to the U.S., during WWII, helped us develop the technology, not only for the A-Bomb, but our very own missile defense and space programs.
The superior optics of Nikon cameras, came from German techs who escaped to Japan.

We can’t just hide in a hole in the ground, and hope that no one tries to dig us up. I really don’t want to fight a battle on our home ground, I’d rather take the battle to them. Let’s deploy devastation on their land, not ours. If I know that some one is gunning for me, I’ll meet them at their[/i][/b] front door, and take the first[/i][/b] shot. I’m not going to play any games![/i][/b]
We have military bases around the world, why? As a deterrent against those who would think of starting a take over of some type. We can be at any point on the planet within minutes, should the need arise.

Protect our borders? Most definitely! We should have implemented a strong system years ago. The laws are in place, we just need the collective backbone to enforce them. Our medical, education, and economy in general, is straining due to the burden of illegal immigrants from many countries tapping our system. Kick them out and lock the door.