desperate housewives and Al Queda

[The_Professor]

"That's when the US goes to Dan Mitrione style - but in some countries (Vietnam, Iraq) it has little effect."

I fail to see the problem here. If you go into a conflict like this, you must deciude:

1. I'm going to go in and kill everybody in sight, no holds barred and screw the political ramificaitons but no more guerillas (or anyone else for that matter). Okay, be SOMEHAT selective, but not much. If one person fro ma town shoots at you, you kill EVERYONE in the village.
2. I'm going to play around for 15 years and go nowhere (aka Vietnam)
3. I'm going to avoid it altogether.

Please select only one.

[_JS]

"That's when the US goes to Dan Mitrione style - but in some countries (Vietnam, Iraq) it has little effect."

I fail to see the problem here. If you go int oa conflict like this, you must deciude:

1. I'm going to go in and kill everybody in sight, no holds barred and screw the political ramificaitons but no more guerillas (or anyone else for that matter). Okay, be SOMEHAT selective, but not much. If one person fro ma town shoots at you, you kill EVERYONE i nthe village.
2. I'm going to play around for 15 years and go nowhere (aka Vietnam)
3. I'm going to avoid it altogether.

Please slect only one.

It is much more subtle than that though Prof. After all, you don't want to kill too much of your cheap labor pool! You just want them to be so afraid of disagreeing with you that they don't dare step out of line. In essence, you want a police state as Uruguay (or Chile, or Brazil, or Argentina) had.

The problem is that you're right. In a country like Iraq and Vietnam, the resistance is too strong. The people are not cooperative and they are too unified in their resistance movements for pure state terror to work properly. Quite frankly, we don't have the force to ensure order in Iraq. Vietnam was similar, only even more difficult to control.

The real similarity is in the outcome. If you asked someone in 1969 what a victory in Vietnam looked like - not many people could really describe it in detail. Ask someone what a military in Iraq looks like. What does it really look like?

[Michael Tee]

I think this whole projection of power trip seems to be overlooking one salient point - - even if it works (which it didn't in Nam, where the U.S. had lots of carriers deployed,) it's only gonna work as long as you're not stepping on the toes of someone who can deploy more carriers than you can, or is rapidly moving towards  that status.  China alone, for example, is soon going to be able to produce more and better everything than the U.S.A., and that includes weapons systems and it certainly will include carriers.  China with one other major ally will likely dwarf the U.S.A.  Projecting power into the backyards of Russia, China or India may not be such a great idea when the power that you are projecting is overmatched by the power of the people you are projecting it on.

Billions of people have come to hate and loathe the U.S. and that hatred can and will ultimately translate into direct action if the U.S. continues on its present path.  Right now, it might be able to get away with its usual shit - - although you have to wonder at the "power" of a nation of 300,000,000 held at bay by a small but determined nation of only 23 million.  The one sure thing I know is that, whatever the actual power advantage the U.S. enjoys vis a vis the rest of the world, it is shrinking fairly rapidly.  Not that the U.S. is losing its punch, but that its rivals are gaining theirs. 

I think the old paradigm of "projecting power" needs to be re-thought.  Not that that'll happen - - your system of lobbying and campaign financing virtually guarantees the elimination of honest, intelligent leadership in favour of total ass-holes.  The incumbent being a perfect example, among many.  One day you'll do exactly what Hitler did - - project some power onto the wrong people.   Unite an unbeatable coalition against you.   Convince the world that nothing but your total destruction can save the human race and/or the planet. Too bad I won't live to see that day.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ah, but WE DO have numerous threats as in a re-emerging Russia, an emerging China a mystery in Iran and so on.

Why not look at it this way? What we do is remove many of our overseas bases in countries like Saudi Arabia and we substitute carriers?

As far a being macho, it is unfortunately necessary to remind people that America is there for not only punitive measures but for help as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia is no threat at all to the US, and neither is China, as long as we owe them billions and billions.
Iran and its speedboats and total lack of nuclear weapons is only useful for annoying Israel.

It is NOT necessary to "remind people that America is there for punitive measures".

Who the diddle are you going to help with a monster carrier battle group?

Didn't someone post here that a swarm of speedboats could defeat a huge Navy?

[The_Professor]

That person is incorrect. With proper procedures, no speed boats can make even a dent. You simply do not let them get lcose.

Regardless what you wuss liberals think is needed, me, a RATWING rightist, believes we need to exhibit strength, for several reasons. One of these is that it actually prevents others from even seriously thinking thet can get away with something.

I would then obviously argue for MORE carrier task forces, not less.

[Xavier_Onassis]

For the price of one ancient used French or British or Swedish destroyer, the Iranians could pretty much fill the Strait of Hormuz with thousands of zippy Islamic speedboats, had they a mind to. The results might be similar to the final scene of the film "Willard', except with speedboats instead of rats,and large ships in lieu of humans.

I think we need better diplomats and more creative thinkers than we need hugely expensive armaments.

I observe at this point that 9-11 could not have been prevented by any number of carrier defense groups.

Perhaps six competent security guards, appointed by a more clever version of National Security Advisor Rice, however, could have stopped 9-11 in its tracks. In this case, the solution was bewter intelligence, not more firepower.

It is said that to a man with a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. And yet, this is not true.

Your pleas for larger hammers deserve to be ignored, and I am hoping that the next administration will be so much smarter than the current one, which has been legendary in its stupidity, that better alternatives will be found.

I am opposed to the US conquering the world and standing upon its windpipe for moral reasons. However, this is also impossible for logistical reasons as well.

[The_Professor]

For the price of one ancient used French or British or Swedish destroyer, the Iranians could pretty much fill the Strait of Hormuz with thousands of zippy Islamic speedboats, had they a mind to. The results might be similar to the final scene of the film "Willard', except with speedboats instead of rats,and large ships in lieu of humans.

I think we need better diplomats and more creative thinkers than we need hugely expensive armaments.

I observe at this point that 9-11 could not have been prevented by any number of carrier defense groups.

Perhaps six competent security guards, appointed by a more clever version of National Security Advisor Rice, however, could have stopped 9-11 in its tracks. In this case, the solution was bewter intelligence, not more firepower.

It is said that to a man with a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. And yet, this is not true.

Your pleas for larger hammers deserve to be ignored, and I am hoping that the next administration will be so much smarter than the current one, which has been legendary in its stupidity, that better alternatives will be found.

I am opposed to the US conquering the world and standing upon its windpipe for moral reasons. However, this is also impossible for logistical reasons as well.

XO, never did I say I wanted to use them to intimidate per se. I want to show strength and hopefully not have to USE IT. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" might be my mantra.

[_JS]

For the price of one ancient used French or British or Swedish destroyer, the Iranians could pretty much fill the Strait of Hormuz with thousands of zippy Islamic speedboats, had they a mind to. The results might be similar to the final scene of the film "Willard', except with speedboats instead of rats,and large ships in lieu of humans.

I think we need better diplomats and more creative thinkers than we need hugely expensive armaments.

I observe at this point that 9-11 could not have been prevented by any number of carrier defense groups.

Perhaps six competent security guards, appointed by a more clever version of National Security Advisor Rice, however, could have stopped 9-11 in its tracks. In this case, the solution was bewter intelligence, not more firepower.

It is said that to a man with a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. And yet, this is not true.

Your pleas for larger hammers deserve to be ignored, and I am hoping that the next administration will be so much smarter than the current one, which has been legendary in its stupidity, that better alternatives will be found.

I am opposed to the US conquering the world and standing upon its windpipe for moral reasons. However, this is also impossible for logistical reasons as well.

XO, never did I say I wanted to use them to intimidte per se. I want to show strength and hopefully not have to USE IT. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" might be my mantra.

What does it matter? Naval armadas don't really frighten very many people any longer. They did a good job terrifying the Cuban construction workers and puzzled American medical students on Grenada, but they didn't have any effect on Iran or North Korea. Certainly the Iraqi insurgents could give a damn less. The Vietnamese didn't seem to care a whole lot either. They certainly didn't start waving white flags or drawing up surrender papers.

Our army and marines have lost nearly all of their lustre in Iraq. And we're talking here about sending the navy out to scare other nations - something practiced in pre-World War I times of the Great Empires. Obvious signs of a declining empire and none too soon.

[Plane]

<<An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.>>

Correct.  But beating the average by a wide margin (as was the case with Bechtel and Halliburton) indicates that you were in a much smaller cohort of above-average performers.  It's not around 50% any more and depending on the width of the margin, it could be the top 1% or 2%.

Oh what percent do they fall into?

How do we know that there are not dozens of companys doing just as well?

[Plane]

<<It is a pleasant surprise to me.

<<I thought we were haveing too much troubble to expect profit.>>

WE?  Does this imply that you are holding shares in Halliburton?  Even if you are, do you really expect much of the profits will be passed off to you as dividends?  Don't worry, the directors of the company are waaay too smart for that.  You'll get what's left over, if anything, after the profits are dispensed as expenses, higher salaries and perks, payments for "services" to corporations you never heard of and in which you DON'T hold any shares, etc.

I don't think you fully understand the beauty of the scheme - - YOU, as the dumb-schmuck Amerikkkan citizen, bear ALL of the costs of the venture:  the 4,000 dead hillbillies, the half-trillion in government costs, the interest on the money borrowed to make up those costs, etc.  The PROFITS of the venture accrue to a corporation called Halliburton and to a privately-held corporation called Bechtel and to some other corporations,all of which are largely owned by Amerikkka's billionaire class.  That profit that you are so jubilant about is theirs, not yours.

So oil was never needed for these "profits"?

Sounds as if all the companys you know are Enron in some measure.

[Michael Tee]

<<So oil was never needed for these "profits"?>>

Oy, plane.  Oil is the linch-pin of the whole scheme.  It pays for everything.  How else are the poor Iraqis gonna "repay" the enormous "debt" that they owe the American people for the "heroic efforts" of Halliburton, Bechtel, et al. to "reconstruct" their country??  And if by any chance the Iraqi people manage to beat off the Amerikkkan dragon and get to keep all their oil profits for their own account, you think that Halliburton or Bechtel is ever gonna pay back the U.S. any of their record contracting profits?  Lotsa  luck, my friend.  The ultimate loser would be the Amerikkkan tax-payer in that case.
Naturally, victory in Iraq would be best for all concerned.  Except for the Iraqis, of course.  The puppet government would be repaying Iraq's "debt" to Amerikkka, ensuring that both Halliburton and the Amerikkkan taxpayer don't come up short, and in addition their hydrocarbons law would confer unprecedented windfall profits on the worthy corporation for decades to come.

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

<<Sounds as if all the companys you know are Enron in some measure.>>

I'm not even sure what that means.  I certainly don't think all companies are dishonest and fraudulent, if that's what you mean.  But plenty of them are.  Halliburton, for example, since we seem to be discussing it at the momenr.

[Plane]

How else are the poor Iraqis gonna "repay" the enormous "debt" that they owe the American people for the "heroic efforts" of Halliburton, Bechtel, et al. to "reconstruct" their country??

They arn't going to.

How long did it take the Allies that owed "lend " and "lease" to the US to pay it back?

[_JS]

<<An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.>>

Correct.  But beating the average by a wide margin (as was the case with Bechtel and Halliburton) indicates that you were in a much smaller cohort of above-average performers.  It's not around 50% any more and depending on the width of the margin, it could be the top 1% or 2%.

Oh what percent do they fall into?

How do we know that there are not dozens of companys doing just as well?

Oh there are:

CACI increased in value by as much as 60% since the invasion of Iraq for providing "private interrogators." Remember them in Abu Ghraib?

Titan provides translators in Iraq for hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention a very lucrative Homeland Security contract). They also played a role in torture at Abu Ghraib, but more distressing is the fact that they have repeatedly provided false information to the U.S. military, not through misinformation, but through pure incompetence. They run no language skills tests for their employers beyond an extremely short interview process.

Interestingly, Titan has violated international election laws and also contributed to a terrorist money laundering organization. Repeat business I suppose.

Halliburton KBR has repeatedly ripped off taxpayers, running empty convoys both to and from destinations with military escorts - risking the lives of soldiers and drivers - in order to bill the government and increase profits.

What is amazing is that people defend this bullshit. Privatising warfare pays well...for a small minority of people. Raping Iraq pays well...again for a very small minority of people. The public pays, both here in America and in Iraq.

[Michael Tee]

<<How long did it take the Allies that owed "lend " and "lease" to the US to pay it back?>>

Interesting question.  From Wikipedia, on Lend-Lease:

<<Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington suddenly and unexpectedly terminated Lend-Lease on September 2, 1945. Britain needed to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. [Original agreement was that the "lent" equipment would be returned when no longer needed or destroyed. - MT]  As a result the Anglo-American loan came about. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at the knockdown price of about 10 cents on the dollar giving an initial value of ?1,075 million. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 years at 2% interest. [7] . The final payment of $83.3 million (?42.5 million) due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred on several occasions) was made on 29 December 2006, it being the last working day of the year. After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the US for its wartime support.>>

Interesting though this little side-track might be, I think we're getting off your original contentions, which were that there was no profit to be had in muscling into an equity position in the Iraqi oil wells (a patently absurd contention!) and that Halliburton, Bechtel et al. did not profit enormously from this war, which is at least prima facie flatly contradicted by hard facts such as share prices and annual earnings reports quoted by JS.  In answer to the apparent evidence of solid profits from the war, you could only point to the generally "good economy" which of course does not explain in the least how the favourable numbers managed to substantially out-perform the market averages.  [Admittedly, I am taking JS at his word on this, there is no data I have seen that compares Halliburton or Bechtel figures with the comparable market averages for the same periods of time.  But I consider JS a fairly reliable source.] 

[Plane]

<<An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.>>

Correct.  But beating the average by a wide margin (as was the case with Bechtel and Halliburton) indicates that you were in a much smaller cohort of above-average performers.  It's not around 50% any more and depending on the width of the margin, it could be the top 1% or 2%.

Oh what percent do they fall into?

How do we know that there are not dozens of companys doing just as well?

Oh there are:

CACI increased in value by as much as 60% since the invasion of Iraq for providing "private interrogators." Remember them in Abu Ghraib?

Titan provides translators in Iraq for hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention a very lucrative Homeland Security contract). They also played a role in torture at Abu Ghraib, but more distressing is the fact that they have repeatedly provided false information to the U.S. military, not through misinformation, but through pure incompetence. They run no language skills tests for their employers beyond an extremely short interview process.

Interestingly, Titan has violated international election laws and also contributed to a terrorist money laundering organization. Repeat business I suppose.

Halliburton KBR has repeatedly ripped off taxpayers, running empty convoys both to and from destinations with military escorts - risking the lives of soldiers and drivers - in order to bill the government and increase profits.

What is amazing is that people defend this bullshit. Privatising warfare pays well...for a small minority of people. Raping Iraq pays well...again for a very small minority of people. The public pays, both here in America and in Iraq.

Lucrative government contracts?

I understand that , the Government very commonly pays more for a product or service than any privite concern would be willing to.

But are you not demonstrateing hereby that there is no profit being taken from Iraqs oil?

All of the profit that has been mentioned so far is from US tax money .No oil involved at all.