$3B taxpayer’s money down the drain.

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
$3B taxpayer’s money down the drain.

2011-03-30 09:10:10

#201

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6664|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
I had to delete what I first wrote. I realized you didn't mean to demean those who serve...

Our military isn't used by policy makers in a consistent manner, but those who serve always serve their nation and it's interests, just as those who serve in a purely defensive force (if such a creature even exists) do.

I understand that people who join usually intend to serve their country, but I just find it hard to view most of what our leadership chooses to do as being representative of that.

The politicians who get to decide what our military does seem to be more focused on their own profit than in any true protection of our country.

FEOS wrote:
I'd say the current conflict (Libya) is benefiting Russia more than anyone. As long as the flow of oil from Libya remains in question, they are the supplier of choice for Europe. It's in their interest for this conflict to continue--probably why they are starting to balk at the expansion beyond the NFZ, as it tips things beyond a stalemate.

Good point. That would also explain the behavior of many Russians I've encountered online with regard to this conflict...

FEOS wrote:
Interventionism without clear purpose is generally more expensive than it's worth--since without a clear purpose, you don't know why you're intervening to begin with. That, and constantly changing goals lead to quagmires and money pits--the end result of most Western interventions over the past several decades.

Well, we also seem to have this unrealistic view of war. People bitch and moan when civilians die, but it doesn't make much sense. It's fucking war. Of course people are going to die left and right.

The public needs to more realistically assess war for what it is. If they want to support it, they've got to own up to the fact that a lot of "collateral damage" will be involved. If they want to avoid said damage, then you can't support the war to begin with.

It almost reminds me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run

The retreat was relatively orderly up to the Bull Run crossings, but it was poorly managed by the Union officers. A Union wagon was overturned by artillery fire on a bridge spanning Cub Run Creek and incited panic in McDowell's force. As the soldiers streamed uncontrollably toward Centreville, discarding their arms and equipment, McDowell ordered Col. Dixon S. Miles's division to act as a rear guard, but it was impossible to rally the army short of Washington. In the disorder that followed, hundreds of Union troops were taken prisoner. The wealthy elite of nearby Washington, including congressmen and their families, expecting an easy Union victory, had come to picnic and watch the battle. When the Union army was driven back in a running disorder, the roads back to Washington were blocked by panicked civilians attempting to flee in their carriages.

Picnicking at a fucking war... unbelievable.

2011-03-30 09:25:03

#202

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
How much is needed for domestic defense vs "other?" Where do you draw the line? And do you apply the same criteria to other forms of government spending, since at that level it comes down to security interests? You use the military instrument of power instead of the economic instrument...or in concert with the diplomatic...or the informational...or pick your favorite combination. Whatever. Point being, you're spending national resources outside the US to protect our interests abroad. And you object to those interests being protected? Or you just think you know better?
I think I know enough to realize that most interventionism is more expensive than it's worth.

Every country goes through an imperialist phase -- ours just happens to be more expansive (and expensive) than most.

You can come up with every excuse under the sun to get involved in whatever conflicts you like, but at the end of the day, it's not for the benefit of the people. It's for the benefit of war profiteers and multinational corporations.

When you join the military, you aren't serving your country -- you're serving elite interests. Only a purely defensive military serves the interests of its people in a consistent manner.

Bud, I have always considered you one who always maintained a rational POV even if I didn't agree with it. But this post of yours is some of the most off the wall shit I have ever read from you, considering the relief efforts in Japan currently under way by the US military. Just the LATEST example of the history of US military relief efforts in the world. The US military even delivered relief efforts to countries we consider hostile to US interests. Hardly missions "elitists" would to undertake.

So please, stay rational, because your irrational emotional banter, smacks of a response usually reserved for a liberal.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-30 09:31:31)

2011-03-30 09:26:45

#203

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Shocking wrote:
I haven't really followed the last few pages of the debate but just to be sure, what in the defense industry do you have a problem with? Every aspect of it, or just some projects?

As I said before I do believe a defense industry is necessary to some extent, and fighter jet contracts and the like are bound to haul in massive revenue for a company, effectively making them dependant on the gov. It's a bit unavoidable.
I have a problem with defense spending that exceeds domestic defense.

lowing wrote:

yes we agree.

Now let me ask this. Do we agree that all others can fuck off?

also, what are my contradictions?
If it's possible to truly limit welfare to only those who can't help themselves and those who help themselves, then yes. I'm not sure how you could go about that though.
Piece of cake, first through birth certificates establish US citizenship. Then through medical records, tax returns, education history, work history and criminal records ( or lack of any ) you can easily determine who is worthless and who just needs a hand up.

Would really like to know what I have contradicted myself on by the way.

was this something we can agree on Turquoise?

2011-03-30 09:32:13

#204

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6664|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
Bud, I have always considered you one who always maintained a rational POV even if I didn't agree with it. But this post of yours is some of the most off the wall shit I have ever read from you, considering the relief efforts in Japan currently under way by the US military. Just the LATEST example of the history of US military relief efforts in the world. The US military even delivered relief efforts to countries we consider hostile to US interests.

So please, stay rational, because your irrational emotional banter, smacks of a response usually reserved for a liberal.

While relief efforts are certainly more respectable than most interventions we've done, the majority of what we do is not humanitarian in nature. That's not emotion. That's a fact.

If all we did was humanitarian relief efforts, then I guess you could more easily support our interventionism. I still think it would be going beyond our responsibilities, but it would at least be noble.

2011-03-30 09:34:32

#205

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6664|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Shocking wrote:
I haven't really followed the last few pages of the debate but just to be sure, what in the defense industry do you have a problem with? Every aspect of it, or just some projects?

As I said before I do believe a defense industry is necessary to some extent, and fighter jet contracts and the like are bound to haul in massive revenue for a company, effectively making them dependant on the gov. It's a bit unavoidable.
I have a problem with defense spending that exceeds domestic defense.

If it's possible to truly limit welfare to only those who can't help themselves and those who help themselves, then yes. I'm not sure how you could go about that though.
Piece of cake, first through birth certificates establish US citizenship. Then through medical records, tax returns, education history, work history and criminal records ( or lack of any ) you can easily determine who is worthless and who just needs a hand up.

Would really like to know what I have contradicted myself on by the way.
was this something we can agree on Turquoise?

I suppose so, but getting a complete understanding of what the criteria for this would be would probably require a thread of its own.

2011-03-30 09:38:27

#206

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bud, I have always considered you one who always maintained a rational POV even if I didn't agree with it. But this post of yours is some of the most off the wall shit I have ever read from you, considering the relief efforts in Japan currently under way by the US military. Just the LATEST example of the history of US military relief efforts in the world. The US military even delivered relief efforts to countries we consider hostile to US interests.

So please, stay rational, because your irrational emotional banter, smacks of a response usually reserved for a liberal.
While relief efforts are certainly more respectable than most interventions we've done, the majority of what we do is not humanitarian in nature. That's not emotion. That's a fact.

If all we did was humanitarian relief efforts, then I guess you could more easily support our interventionism. I still think it would be going beyond our responsibilities, but it would at least be noble.

Well Turquoise, while fighting our wars is surely their first mission,( whose military isn't) what do you consider their secondary mission behind that?

Fighting our wars and supplying humanitarian relief efforts is a HUGE part of what the US does with its military, and for you to ignore or dismiss that fact, and simply dismiss those that serve as merely serving "elitists interests", like brain washed zombies is nothing less than an insult to all who serve.

2011-03-30 09:48:49

#207

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6664|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bud, I have always considered you one who always maintained a rational POV even if I didn't agree with it. But this post of yours is some of the most off the wall shit I have ever read from you, considering the relief efforts in Japan currently under way by the US military. Just the LATEST example of the history of US military relief efforts in the world. The US military even delivered relief efforts to countries we consider hostile to US interests.

So please, stay rational, because your irrational emotional banter, smacks of a response usually reserved for a liberal.
While relief efforts are certainly more respectable than most interventions we've done, the majority of what we do is not humanitarian in nature. That's not emotion. That's a fact.

If all we did was humanitarian relief efforts, then I guess you could more easily support our interventionism. I still think it would be going beyond our responsibilities, but it would at least be noble.
Well Turquoise, while fighting our wars is surely their first mission,( whose military isn't) what do you consider their secondary mission behind that?

Fighting our wars and supplying humanitarian relief efforts is a HUGE part of what the US does with its military, and for you to ignore or dismiss that fact, and simply dismiss those that serve as merely serving "elitists interests", like brain washed zombies is nothing less than an insult to all who serve.

I'm not saying it's a matter of brainwashing. It's a matter of authority. The way our government directs our military is the root of the problem.

Politicians are beholden to corporate interests. This manifests in our foreign policy by what they choose to intervene in a lot of the time.

It's not that every soldier is some automaton. I've known a number of servicemen in different branches of the military. There's one guy in particular at my work from the Army that I sometimes talk with who shares a number of my views on things. He's rather cynical about the nature of our interventionism, and I can't blame him for that. He was stationed in Iraq for a while, and he has some interesting stories to share.

One thing I've noticed about the servicemen I've met is that the ones who see combat tend to be more wary of our foreign policy, whereas the ones who served during peacetime (or outside of an active conflict) tend to be less questioning of the nature of our foreign policy.

Also, I'm not saying all of our interventionism is wrong either. Sometimes, you have to get involved. WW2 was a good example. You could even argue that Bosnia was another. I don't think we've had much of a compelling reason to intervene in anything since Bosnia though.

2011-03-30 10:02:57

#208

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6670|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Bud, I have always considered you one who always maintained a rational POV even if I didn't agree with it. But this post of yours is some of the most off the wall shit I have ever read from you, considering the relief efforts in Japan currently under way by the US military. Just the LATEST example of the history of US military relief efforts in the world. The US military even delivered relief efforts to countries we consider hostile to US interests.

So please, stay rational, because your irrational emotional banter, smacks of a response usually reserved for a liberal.
While relief efforts are certainly more respectable than most interventions we've done, the majority of what we do is not humanitarian in nature. That's not emotion. That's a fact.

If all we did was humanitarian relief efforts, then I guess you could more easily support our interventionism. I still think it would be going beyond our responsibilities, but it would at least be noble.

The vast majority of our military missions could easily be classified as humanitarian in nature. It's just the "warlike" missions that get all the press..."if it bleeds, it leads."

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-03-30 10:12:56

#209

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
While relief efforts are certainly more respectable than most interventions we've done, the majority of what we do is not humanitarian in nature. That's not emotion. That's a fact.

If all we did was humanitarian relief efforts, then I guess you could more easily support our interventionism. I still think it would be going beyond our responsibilities, but it would at least be noble.
Well Turquoise, while fighting our wars is surely their first mission,( whose military isn't) what do you consider their secondary mission behind that?

Fighting our wars and supplying humanitarian relief efforts is a HUGE part of what the US does with its military, and for you to ignore or dismiss that fact, and simply dismiss those that serve as merely serving "elitists interests", like brain washed zombies is nothing less than an insult to all who serve.
I'm not saying it's a matter of brainwashing. It's a matter of authority. The way our government directs our military is the root of the problem.

Politicians are beholden to corporate interests. This manifests in our foreign policy by what they choose to intervene in a lot of the time.

It's not that every soldier is some automaton. I've known a number of servicemen in different branches of the military. There's one guy in particular at my work from the Army that I sometimes talk with who shares a number of my views on things. He's rather cynical about the nature of our interventionism, and I can't blame him for that. He was stationed in Iraq for a while, and he has some interesting stories to share.

One thing I've noticed about the servicemen I've met is that the ones who see combat tend to be more wary of our foreign policy, whereas the ones who served during peacetime (or outside of an active conflict) tend to be less questioning of the nature of our foreign policy.

Also, I'm not saying all of our interventionism is wrong either. Sometimes, you have to get involved. WW2 was a good example. You could even argue that Bosnia was another. I don't think we've had much of a compelling reason to intervene in anything since Bosnia though.

this is a little more level headed than the post I responded to Turquoise, don't ever turn liberal on me again!! but I will say that I believe the roll of the US military as humanitarian is outweighed by the wars fought. It just doesn't make for a good story.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-02 04:55:41)

2011-03-31 05:24:00

#210

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
How much is needed for domestic defense vs "other?" Where do you draw the line? And do you apply the same criteria to other forms of government spending, since at that level it comes down to security interests? You use the military instrument of power instead of the economic instrument...or in concert with the diplomatic...or the informational...or pick your favorite combination. Whatever. Point being, you're spending national resources outside the US to protect our interests abroad. And you object to those interests being protected? Or you just think you know better?

Protecting your interests abroad - thats the biggest myth of all the ones used to justify 'defence' spending.

Fuck Israel

2011-03-31 16:12:53

#211

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6670|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
How much is needed for domestic defense vs "other?" Where do you draw the line? And do you apply the same criteria to other forms of government spending, since at that level it comes down to security interests? You use the military instrument of power instead of the economic instrument...or in concert with the diplomatic...or the informational...or pick your favorite combination. Whatever. Point being, you're spending national resources outside the US to protect our interests abroad. And you object to those interests being protected? Or you just think you know better?
Protecting your interests abroad - thats the biggest myth of all the ones used to justify 'defence' spending.

How so? Please do a comparative analysis of the most recent and preceding NSSs and the NDSs, tied to defense budgets, and show how they aren't linked.

I'll make it easy for you: you can't. Because you can't get a single red cent approved for defense programs if they can't be linked to both the national defense strategy and national security strategy, which lay out our national interests, both at home and abroad.

2011-03-31 22:55:16

#212

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7034|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I'd say the current conflict (Libya) is benefiting Russia more than anyone. As long as the flow of oil from Libya remains in question, they are the supplier of choice for Europe. It's in their interest for this conflict to continue--probably why they are starting to balk at the expansion beyond the NFZ, as it tips things beyond a stalemate.
Good point. That would also explain the behavior of many Russians I've encountered online with regard to this conflict...

why don't you start discussing things you have an idea about, huh? russia has tens of billions worth of contracts with lybia for developing their oil industry, even forgiven them some 4.5 billion in old bebts to get those contracts. you know what will happen to all this business when daffy's toppled? - yeah, exactly what happened to the contracts russia had with saddam.

go clean some shit from your own lawn.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-04-01 01:13:52

#213

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
How so? Please do a comparative analysis of the most recent and preceding NSSs and the NDSs, tied to defense budgets, and show how they aren't linked.

I'll make it easy for you: you can't. Because you can't get a single red cent approved for defense programs if they can't be linked to both the national defense strategy and national security strategy, which lay out our national interests, both at home and abroad.

Why don't you set out what foreign interests the US has, and how they are related to a humongous military?

Most countries seem to do fine without either.

Fuck Israel

2011-04-01 03:47:13

#214

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6670|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I'd say the current conflict (Libya) is benefiting Russia more than anyone. As long as the flow of oil from Libya remains in question, they are the supplier of choice for Europe. It's in their interest for this conflict to continue--probably why they are starting to balk at the expansion beyond the NFZ, as it tips things beyond a stalemate.
Good point. That would also explain the behavior of many Russians I've encountered online with regard to this conflict...
why don't you start discussing things you have an idea about, huh? russia has tens of billions worth of contracts with lybia for developing their oil industry, even forgiven them some 4.5 billion in old bebts to get those contracts. you know what will happen to all this business when daffy's toppled? - yeah, exactly what happened to the contracts russia had with saddam.

go clean some shit from your own lawn.

The TNC has already said it will honor all existing contracts. kthx.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Why don't you set out what foreign interests the US has, and how they are related to a humongous military?

Most countries seem to do fine without either.

Read the documents I mentioned. They are online.

A large part of the "humongous military" we have in comparison to others is due to treaty obligations. That's also why others don't have to maintain such a large military, comparatively. We agreed to take on that responsibility because our economy (could) take it, in comparison to others'. It's pseudo-foreign aid. So most countries "do fine" exactly because the US has such a large military and bears the burden globally.

2011-04-01 04:07:42

#215

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7034|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Good point. That would also explain the behavior of many Russians I've encountered online with regard to this conflict...
why don't you start discussing things you have an idea about, huh? russia has tens of billions worth of contracts with lybia for developing their oil industry, even forgiven them some 4.5 billion in old bebts to get those contracts. you know what will happen to all this business when daffy's toppled? - yeah, exactly what happened to the contracts russia had with saddam.

go clean some shit from your own lawn.
The TNC has already said it will honor all existing contracts. kthx.

when saddam was being toppled everybody was saying the same. and then it went like "oops, gtfo".

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-04-01 18:57:47

#216

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6670|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:

why don't you start discussing things you have an idea about, huh? russia has tens of billions worth of contracts with lybia for developing their oil industry, even forgiven them some 4.5 billion in old bebts to get those contracts. you know what will happen to all this business when daffy's toppled? - yeah, exactly what happened to the contracts russia had with saddam.

go clean some shit from your own lawn.
The TNC has already said it will honor all existing contracts. kthx.
when saddam was being toppled everybody was saying the same. and then it went like "oops, gtfo".

Nope. GoI honored existing contracts until new contracts could be bid.

2011-04-01 23:06:19

#217

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7034|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:

The TNC has already said it will honor all existing contracts. kthx.
when saddam was being toppled everybody was saying the same. and then it went like "oops, gtfo".
Nope. GoI honored existing contracts until new contracts could be bid.

nope, they didn't.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-04-02 06:10:20

#218

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6670|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
when saddam was being toppled everybody was saying the same. and then it went like "oops, gtfo".
Nope. GoI honored existing contracts until new contracts could be bid.
nope, they didn't.

You're right. There were no existing contracts before the war. So I guess your comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Iraq's first postwar oil bidding for oil contracts

Iraq is scheduled to open its first postwar bidding for oil service contracts on Monday. International oil companies were expelled by Saddam Hussein more than 30 years ago. The companies that qualified for the bidding, along with the fields and reserves, are compiled below.

By The Associated Press

Iraq is scheduled to open its first postwar bidding for oil service contracts on Monday. International oil companies were expelled by Saddam Hussein more than 30 years ago. The companies that qualified for the bidding, along with the fields and reserves, are compiled below.

UNITED STATES: Chevron, ConocoPhilips, Exxon Mobil, Hess Corp., Marathon International Petroleum Ltd., and Occidental Petroleum Corp.

United Kingdom: BP Group PLC.

Japan: Inpex Holdings Inc., Japex and Nippon Oil Corp.

Australia: BHP Billiton Ltd. and Woodside Petroleum Ltd.

China: China's CNOOC Ltd., CNPC International Ltd., Sinochem International Co. Ltd., and Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical co. Ltd.

Italy: Edison International SPA and Eni.

Russia: JSC Lukoil and JSC Gazprom Neft.

France: Total SA.

South Korea: Korea Gas Corp).

Spain: Repsol YPF SA.

Norway: StatoilHydro ASA.

advertising

Netherlands: Royal Dutch Shell.

Canada: Nexen Inc.

Denmark: Maersk.

India: ONGC Ltd.

Malaysia: Petronas Gas BHD.

Indonesia: PT Pertamina.

The six state-run oil firms that have been added are Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO), Algeria's Sonatrach, PetroVietnam, Angola's Sonangol SA, Pakistan Petroleum Ltd., and Petroleum Authority of Thailand.

OIL AND GAS FIELDS

BASRA OIL FIELDS:

Rumaila: The field is made up of two separate fields; North and South Rumaila. Together they have an estimated of almost 17.8 billion barrels of oil in reserves. It currently produces slightly over 1 million barrels a day, and its production target is about 1.8 million barrels per day.

West Qurna Stage 1: It has estimated reserves of 8.6 billion barrels, and currently produces about 280,000 barrels a day. The production target is slightly over 600,000 barrels per day.

Zubair: It holds an estimated 4.1 billion barrels of oil. Its current production is about 230,000 barrels per day and its target production is slightly over 400,000 barrels per day.

MISSAN OIL FIELDS:

They are three adjacent fields offered as one group. Total daily production ranges from 100,000 to 110,000 barrels per day with target output at about 300,000 barrels per day.

Fauqa (or Fakkah): Almost 1.55 billion barrels of oil in reserves.

Buzurgan: About 612 million barrels of oil in reserves.

Abu Gharab: About 454 million barrels of oil in reserves.

KIRKUK OIL FIELDS:

Kirkuk: It has estimated reserves of almost 8 billion barrels. Current production is slightly over 400,000 barrels per day. Target production is about 625,000 barrels per day.

Bai Hassan: It has almost 2.4 billion barrels of oil in reserves. Current daily production is about 150,000 barrels per day. Target production is about 230,000 barrels per day.

GAS FIELDS:

Akkas Field in Anbar Province:Undeveloped. At least 2.15 trillion cubic feet of reserves and potential production of 500 million cubic feet per day.

Mansouria in Diyala Province: Undeveloped. An estimated 3.3 trillion cubic feet of reserves with production potential of 330 million cubic feet a day.

Source: Iraq's Oil Ministry

2011-04-02 07:24:56

#219

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7034|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:
You're right. There were no existing contracts before the war.

well, of course, if you take your info from the western media. i, however, have access to people, who actually worked on the contracts i'm talking about.

so, i repeat, go discuss something you actually know about.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-04-02 08:36:42

#220

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6670|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
You're right. There were no existing contracts before the war.
well, of course, if you take your info from the western media. i, however, have access to people, who actually worked on the contracts i'm talking about.

so, i repeat, go discuss something you actually know about.

Oh. Right. I forgot about the big Western media propaganda conspiracy against the Motherland.

Go back and read the source of the info (hint: it's not AP).

2011-04-02 12:09:44

#221

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7034|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
You're right. There were no existing contracts before the war.
well, of course, if you take your info from the western media. i, however, have access to people, who actually worked on the contracts i'm talking about.

so, i repeat, go discuss something you actually know about.
Oh. Right. I forgot about the big Western media propaganda conspiracy against the Motherland.

Go back and read the source of the info (hint: it's not AP).

look, i don't give a fuck what kinda "source" can you pull from internetz - i know people who were in the oil business back then and are in that business now, people whom i've been friends for the longest time, people who have no reason to lie to me and i'm taking their word on this one. but you are of course welcome to keep your head up your ass, i don't care.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-04-02 12:13:06

#222

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5518|foggy bottom

lol. pravda

Tu Stultus Es

2011-04-02 13:42:12

#223

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6664|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
You're right. There were no existing contracts before the war.
well, of course, if you take your info from the western media. i, however, have access to people, who actually worked on the contracts i'm talking about.

so, i repeat, go discuss something you actually know about.

Oh god, this again. There's another forum I go to where one of the Russian posters says almost the exact same things on a daily basis.

This is about as retarded as when conservatives continually go on about the "liberal media."

I guess facts have a "Western, liberal" bias.

2011-04-02 14:35:39

#224

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6670|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:

well, of course, if you take your info from the western media. i, however, have access to people, who actually worked on the contracts i'm talking about.

so, i repeat, go discuss something you actually know about.
Oh. Right. I forgot about the big Western media propaganda conspiracy against the Motherland.

Go back and read the source of the info (hint: it's not AP).
look, i don't give a fuck what kinda "source" can you pull from internetz - i know people who were in the oil business back then and are in that business now, people whom i've been friends for the longest time, people who have no reason to lie to me and i'm taking their word on this one. but you are of course welcome to keep your head up your ass, i don't care.

I guess the Iraqi Oil Ministry (the source of the info, btw--were your friends working with the Iraqi Oil Ministry when they were working in the Iraqi oil industry? They must've missed a memo or something...) must be part of the massive Western media propaganda bias that's up my ass along with my head, too.

Could explain why I have to fart so bad.

2011-04-02 20:32:49

#225

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6975

russia is true paradise

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
$3B taxpayer’s money down the drain.

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums $3B taxpayer’s money down the drain.

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Board footer