Updated Title: World Revolution 2011

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Only on a web board could someone speaking of current conditions be told to "give it a rest" and have that followed up by slamming a president who has been out of office for over 2 years. I actually laughed out loud.

Are you kidding? A president's actions/consequences don't disappear when his term ends.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Are you kidding? A president's actions/consequences don't disappear when his term ends.

Again, I was not saying that Pres. Bush's actions as president aren't relevant. But to tell a person who is commenting on a current president to "give it a rest", while bashing a former president (probably for the thousandth time) is hilarious to me.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It's amazing how everyone just basically got up the balls to express how dissatisfied they are with their current regimes. In those countries it's damn scary to speak out, you can get killed for it. But en masse, they're doing it.

Just goes to show how the people there are not at all different from us (except for the religious nutjobs). They just want to be heard and to be free.

Social media played a role too. Good job Zuckerberg.

In some weird parallel universe, I suppose Zuckerberg should get a Noble Peace Prize. Without the advent of facebook (and Twitter), I just don't see this happening. Certainly not as swiftly with the whole world watching.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Best part about the viva la revolution is Al Qaida and Ole Bin Landen are pissed.

A. They arent playing any part in it
B. These protest and revolutions are literred with democratic and power to the people rhetoric. Not the usuall military, violent regime changes people are used to in that region. They are really pissed about that.

This has to be the largest benefit to the U.S. and other countries as it relates to the threat of terrorism.

The protesters have essentially snatched away the anti-west message from al- Qaeda and their operatives, which was a prime recruiting tool. Now young people see that non-violence works. That they do have a voice, that opressive regimes can be overthrown. AQ is significantly weakened by these turn of events in my opinion.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Again, I was not saying that Pres. Bush's actions as president aren't relevant. But to tell a person who is commenting on a current president to "give it a rest", while bashing a former president (probably for the thousandth time) is hilarious to me.

Good point, how 'bout we stick to the topic, and quit bashing current and former presidents.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Good point, how 'bout we stick to the topic, and quit bashing current and former presidents.

Why? thats just good fun. Not sure if anyone has noticed but gas has jumped 25 cents or more in just one week. I guess Obama is MR Big Oil himself.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Why? thats just good fun. Not sure if anyone has noticed but gas has jumped 25 cents or more in just one week. I guess Obama is MR Big Oil himself.

Maybe we should invade an oil producing country to fix that...oh wait, that didn't work before.

[Tiggwin]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Maybe we should invade an oil producing country to fix that...oh wait, that didn't work before.

well Ruhskins while your comment at face value is true... we did invade an oil producing country... but underneath you are blatantly incorrect. We didnt invade with the intent to conquer/colonize... we invaded under the threat of WMD's and we liberated a people from a brutal dictator. If we had wanted to conquer and colonize we would be controlling their oil... but instead being the "Freedom" loving nation that we are we let the Iraqi people bid out their oil rights to the highest bidder... we didnt "Take" their oil.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Tiggwin

well Ruhskins while your comment at face value is true... we did invade an oil producing country... but underneath you are blatantly incorrect. We didnt invade with the intent to conquer/colonize... we invaded under the threat of WMD's and we liberated a people from a brutal dictator. If we had wanted to conquer and colonize we would be controlling their oil... but instead being the "Freedom" loving nation that we are we let the Iraqi people bid out their oil rights to the highest bidder... we didnt "Take" their oil.

Please tell me that you do not believe this obsolete propaganda.

Iraq had no WMD's. Iran and N.Korea did in 2003. So if we were going to invade to dismantle WMD's, we invaded the wrong place.

As for "brutal dictators," by 2003 Saddam had been thoroughly neutered by UN sanctions and did not really control 2/3 of the country. So in 2003 he was still "brutal," but hardly a powerful dictator. But there were other brutal dictators who were more powerful. If we just wanted to dismantle the rule of a brutal dictator, we picked the wrong place.

Apparently you are not aware that the Iraqi oil industry was rebuilt by Halliburton, Cheney's company. So while we did not colonize Iraq or steal their oil, Cheney made a mint off of the invasion.

Further, both Bush and Cheney are heavily invested in several military industries. Every bullet and every shell that we fired in Iraq lined Bush and Cheney's pockets. Remember when the Halliburton subsidiary KBR was caught red-handed charging outrageous fees for meals, laundry, etc., for soldiers?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Maybe we should invade an oil producing country to fix that...oh wait, that didn't work before.

That was just a fabrication of the left and never the reason for the war.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Please tell me that you do not believe this obsolete propaganda.

Iraq had no WMD's. Iran and N.Korea did in 2003. So if we were going to invade to dismantle WMD's, we invaded the wrong place.

As for "brutal dictators," by 2003 Saddam had been thoroughly neutered by UN sanctions and did not really control 2/3 of the country. So in 2003 he was still "brutal," but hardly a powerful dictator. But there were other brutal dictators who were more powerful. If we just wanted to dismantle the rule of a brutal dictator, we picked the wrong place.

Apparently you are not aware that the Iraqi oil industry was rebuilt by Halliburton, Cheney's company. So while we did not colonize Iraq or steal their oil, Cheney made a mint off of the invasion.

Further, both Bush and Cheney are heavily invested in several military industries. Every bullet and every shell that we fired in Iraq lined Bush and Cheney's pockets. Remember when the Halliburton subsidiary KBR was caught red-handed charging outrageous fees for meals, laundry, etc., for soldiers?

See you get your news from the far left democrate sites. Please give us those links showing how Bush and Cheney made money off the war as you describe. You do know Cheney sold any interest he had in Haliburton before he became VP. Here I will help you.

FactCheck.org: Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

See you get your news from the far left democrate sites. Please give us those links showing how Bush and Cheney made money off the war as you describe. You do know Cheney sold any interest he had in Haliburton before he became VP.

Nope. I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I do not go to far left sites. I get my news, daily, from The New York Times and other independent outlets.

I have tried to find links but they are buried under crap, given the the stories I referenced are now 8 or so years old. I do not have time to dig for news that anyone could have read before had they been paying attention.

BTW In office Cheney remained a "consultant" for Halliburton and then apparently re-deepened his involvement after leaving office.

You also forget about Bush/Cheney complicity in the war industries Carlyle Group and Bechtel Corp.

The Iraq war was not about a dictator or WMD's, as was indicated above. Like most wars, it was about the greed of powerful people.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Nope. I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I do not go to far left sites. I get my news, daily, from The New York Times and other independent outlets.

I have tried to find links but they are buried under crap, given the the stories I referenced are now 8 or so years old. I do not have time to dig for news that anyone could have read before had they been paying attention.

BTW In office Cheney remained a "consultant" for Halliburton and then apparently re-deepened his involvement after leaving office.

You also forget about Bush/Cheney complicity in the war industries Carlyle Group and Bechtel Corp.

The Iraq war was not about a dictator or WMD's, as was indicated above. Like most wars, it was about the greed of powerful people.

You cannot be a consultant for a corporation when your VP of the US. That tells me your info is completely wrong and you have your facts wrong.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You cannot be a consultant for a corporation when your VP of the US. That tells me your info is completely wrong and you have your facts wrong.

On the Sept. 14, 2003 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

But, just as Cheney's wild claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be untrue and his claim that Halliburton had no ties to Saddam Hussein was bogus, his denial about profiting from Halliburton as vice president was also a bald-face lie. So while Cheney denied any relationship with Halliburton as vice president, he conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options. Certainly, Cheney has a "financial interest in Halliburton" while working as vice president.

When confronted with the proof of his ongoing financial ties with Halliburton, Cheney responded by claiming his deferred salary and stock options are not actually a "financial interest" as defined by federal ethics standards and therefore not a conflict of interest. This prompted the Congressional Research Service to issue a report which confirmed Cheney's ongoing financial interest in Halliburton "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."

Caught in another lie, Cheney manufactured another excuse: He said the financial interest in Halliburton is not tied to the success or failure of the company because of an insurance policy. In other words, the insurance policy, which guarantees his financial interest will be paid to him regardless of Halliburton's success or failure, is proof there is no quid-pro-quo. He also said the stock options will be donated to charity, rather than used for his personal gain.

It's clear that Cheney broke the ethics law, but both the president and vice president are exempt from the enforcement of such laws. Therefore, Cheney cannot be prosecuted for his conflict of interest or his lie.

DEFERRED SALARY: Cheney received $205,298 in deferred salary from Halliburton in 2001, $162,392 from the company in 2002 and $178,437 in 2003. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said, "Deferred salary is not a retirement benefit or a payment from a third party escrow account, but rather an ongoing corporate obligation paid from company funds."

STOCK OPTIONS: The Vice President has signed an agreement to donate any profits from his stock options to charity, and has pledged not to take any tax deduction for the donations. Should Halliburton's stock price increase over the next few years, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial profit, benefiting not only his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a substantial tax deduction.

Halliburton Stock Options Currently Held by Cheney (current to end of 2002): 100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire 12-03-07; 33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire 12-02-08; 300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire 12-02-09.

Cheney's deferred compensation and stock option benefits are in addition to a $20 million retirement package paid to him by Halliburton after only five years of employment; a $1.4 million cash bonus paid to him by Halliburton in 2001; and additional millions of dollars in compensation paid to him while he was employed by the company.

In 2002, Cheney's total assets were valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million.


More Information

CRS Report that Confirms that Cheney Deferred Salary and Stock Options Constitute a "Financial Interest in Halliburton

CBS News: Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

Reuters: Cheney took in $178,437 from Halliburton in 2003



###

[Tiggwin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Please tell me that you do not believe this obsolete propaganda.

Iraq had no WMD's. Iran and N.Korea did in 2003. So if we were going to invade to dismantle WMD's, we invaded the wrong place.

As for "brutal dictators," by 2003 Saddam had been thoroughly neutered by UN sanctions and did not really control 2/3 of the country. So in 2003 he was still "brutal," but hardly a powerful dictator. But there were other brutal dictators who were more powerful. If we just wanted to dismantle the rule of a brutal dictator, we picked the wrong place.

Apparently you are not aware that the Iraqi oil industry was rebuilt by Halliburton, Cheney's company. So while we did not colonize Iraq or steal their oil, Cheney made a mint off of the invasion.

Further, both Bush and Cheney are heavily invested in several military industries. Every bullet and every shell that we fired in Iraq lined Bush and Cheney's pockets. Remember when the Halliburton subsidiary KBR was caught red-handed charging outrageous fees for meals, laundry, etc., for soldiers?

Ok Lotus now go back and re read what I wrote... the statement Ruhskins made was that we invaded to steal their oil... I simply corrected Ruhskins by saying that we didnt invade to steal oil... if we had why dont we have it?? We went in "under the threat" of WMD's... I didnt say that we found any first off... and secondly if you think the UN neutered Saddam in any way you are grossly mistaken... As a matter of fact Russia, France as well as Germany all 3 still had oil contracts with Saddam that directly violated the UN Sanction of Oil for Food. Also during the whole Monica Lewinski scandal in 1998 Saddam kick the weapons inspectors out of Iraq so for more than 5 yrs we had not monitored their weapons programs so when the NIE came across Bush's desk in February of 2003 stating that Iraq HAD purchased or ATTEMPTED to purchase Urainium yellowcake from Niger we couldnt verify whether he did or didnt. Now to Bush's credit he spent 13 months trying to get Saddam to allow weapons inspector back in so we could verify what programs he did or didnt have... he balked at us and refused. Bush finally made a stand and told Saddam that if we didnt have weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq by March of 2003 that we would attack.. Saddam continued to "Stand defiantly in the face of the US!!" Im sure you remember all of those headlines in the USA Today etc... all the papers ran it as a cover page headline... I was in the first Persian Gulf War and I knew when we left that we would have to go back... it was just a matter of how long would it take. In the future read what I have written before you just automatically assume Im on one side or the other.