RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any...

RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:04:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Oh NOES!!!!!!!!! You are not supposed to say "Ann Coulter" on this site. She freaks them all out. She certainly freaks me out. That's one ugly bitch.........on every level. Had she been a flaming leftie, arguing against the conservatives and the right, she'd be one of your angel heroes. You'd be talking about how hot she was. Your opinion on her is ideologically driven. You said what you said simply because you disagree with her. But instead of proving her wrong, you lob insults at her, like she says your kind normally does.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair I've never changed my mind based on something said by the people I've debated with... I've always walked away from an argument with the same standing/assessment that I had before getting into the argument. That truly speaks volumes about you. Just like me, you people have absolutely no intention of changing your minds. Unlike you, however, I have the integrity to admit that I'll never change my mind based on what you people say in an argument. I ADMIT that fact, you people DON'T. I don't see you people rushing to change your minds based on the facts presented to you... all I see is the opposition setting up stress shields to protect their egos from a harsh thing called reality. I used to be like you people until I turned the corner and got mugged by reality. Here's something else that speaks volumes, could you figure it out? I said this on this thread: "I know, I've been involved with online debates for years, what's going on in this thread is no different from the others that I've debated on. My intentions aren't to change his mind, but to continuously destroy his arguments." -herfacechair I'm not here to change my mind, or to change yours, I just take pleasure in debating your kind PERPETUALLY. The longer you stay in the fight, the more I could continue to destroy your credibility, and cause you to expose your true nature. I say this knowing that your arrogance will cause you to keep debating despite your failure to answer my challenges, to present facts on your own, to prove my facts "wrong," etc, despite your coming across as a dead man walking. This happens all the time. You speak volumes about yourself when you ignore the facts that I present, yet turn around and demand proof. Well, this series of replies have provided you with the opportunity to look at the facts, but a chance to acknowledge seeing those facts, thus seeing the proof that you demand.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair rulemylife No, the difference is this guy is full of shit and you should be ashamed you are gullible enough to buy into this. You've yet to advance a reasoned, logical, argument to try to counter my statements. You've yet to accept my challenge... see bolded red statement above... you've failed to investigate my statements, let alone made a combat deployment with me... yet you're on here flapping your lips in the wind about the validity of my statements, my character, and about someone that's willing to overlook the childish rants by some people here to see the validity in my comments. You do realize that you have to advance an actual argument, and actually PROVE someone "wrong" before you spew rhetoric about doing such, do you? rulemylife Do you honestly believe that there has been widespread chemical warfare in Iraq but the "mainstream media" has conspired to not report it? WHERE, in MY posts, do I claim that there has been widespread chemical warfare in Iraq? Provide a link to that post, or accept the fact that you're full of shit when it comes to what's said on this thread. And if you're full of it when it comes to information readily available on this thread, this speaks volumes about you being full of it when you say anything else on this thread. I said that mustard and sarin agents were used against our troops, facts that even our investigation team verified. I also said that blister agents were used against the Iraqis... using precedence on how the sarin and mustard agents were used, a smart person would've accurately nailed what I was talking about here... blister agents being used against Iraqi Army personnel. Nowhere in my posts do I say that chemical warfare is/was being waged against the Iraqi civilian population post coalition invasion. rulemylife Do you honestly believe that insurgents have used blister agents against Iraqi civilians within the past few weeks but we somehow have heard nothing about And do you honestly believe the crap you're spewing here? At least have the integrity to address what I actually stated, rather something you wished I said just so that you could have something to talk about. Yes, sarin and mustard agents were used against US troops, and their use was verified not just by the DOD, but by the inspection team the US had in place. Yes, blister agents were used against the Iraqi military, that was verified, photos of the Iraqis affected by these agents don't lie, and these photos verify the fact that they were exposed to chemical agents recently used against them in Iraq. In all three instances, the Anti Iraqi forces laced rounds, part of a a surface laid IED, with the above agents. Those are verified facts, and yes, those are things that we could honestly say actually happened, things we could honestly believe in. rulemylife what would be a major story that every journalist stationed there would be scrambling to cover? WRONG. The majority of the journalists oppose the Iraq War, and are guilty of perpetrating... through Journalistic Fraud... a massive deception of what's really going on in Iraq. Consistent with their beliefs, a major story for them would be a story that builds on their biases, one they'd like to project to the American public. Hence the reason to why they're quick to report the negative things that happen, and massive setbacks. They're quick to report the enemy's IED successes, but are notoriously silent when it comes to the hundreds, even thousands, of IEDs neutralized for every one that goes off. Do you honestly believe that these journalists are willing to give us every news there is for us to see/read? According to the authors of the following books, NO: Journalistic Fraud Bias Arrogance Treason Provide proof or tuck your little puppy dog tail between your legs and wag your way home. Your saying that to me is like the Anti Iraqi force demanding that we pull out of Iraq, and leave our equipment behind. :rolleyes: Go fuck yourself if you expect me to cut and run from an argument that I'm winning. On Sarin: You've farted your rhetoric, now to subject it to blistering scrutiny. From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq" "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [ ] NO [ ] I don't want your diarrhea, I don't want your bullshit... Simply copy and paste everything from "From MSNBC" all the way to "NO [ ]." Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the facts are on your side, you'd be able to answer it per instructions, and you'd be able to answer it without looking stupid. If you feel the need to try to baffle me with bullshit, to avoid what I'm requiring you to do, then obviously you've got no confidence in your statement that I should "tuck my tail" and "wag" my way "home." "Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say." - Ann Coulter On the journalists: From Newsbusters dot org: A survey conducted late last year and released Monday, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, confirmed the obvious -- that compared to the views of the public, conservatives are under-represented in national journalism while liberals are over-represented. ... From Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism and Brit Hume: Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they're moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal. From Bernard Goldberg's 1996 Wall Street Journal piece: "There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other "media elites" have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters." - Bernard Goldberg, WSJ Op-Ed, 13 Feb 96

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:16:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy This thread is proof that- the mil will willingly take our guns. For our safety of course.... I'd worry more about the liberal's hope for a government coming true than I would the military: 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson (?).

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Second, that's a piss poor come back to an article that contained the fact that sarin gas was used against our troops via a surface laid IED. Nope, no attempt on your part to try to address those facts... just pull crap out from behind about what some fictional "neocon" has allegedly has said about Fox News. Then let's address those "facts". The first fact is you are grasping at straws. The fact is there was no ongoing chemical weapon program in Iraq that justified the U.S. invasion. The fact is that Iraq did use chemical weapons during their war with Iran. The fact is Iraq did not use chemical warfare against our troops because after years of U.N. inspections and sanctions they no longer possessed any effective capability. You've yet to address the quote I made of the article reporting sarin gas being used against our troops as part of an IED. That's NOT grasping for straws. Whether there was an ongoing chemical weapon program in Iraq prior to the invasion is beside the point. YOU PEOPLE CLAIMED THAT THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ. Which proved to be false. Here's that quote: From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq" "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. How could you claim the following: "The fact is Iraq did not use chemical warfare against our troops because after years of U.N. inspections and sanctions they no longer possessed any effective capability." rulemylife When your own source stated the following: "Experts familiar with Iraq's chemical weapons program said the shell was likely a leftover from Hussein's pre-Gulf War stockpile." -your source In response to this: "This produced a very small dispersal of agent. . . . Two explosive ordnance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round -your source That's a fucking admission that there were chemical warfare agents present post invasion! How could you look in the mirror and claim that Iraq didn't use that shit against our troops post invasion? How the fuck could you claim this: "The fact is the sarin was so deteriorated that it's use use by insurgents was ineffective." when we had this happen? From your own fucking source: "Two explosive ordnance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round" Again, how the fuck could they have been TREATED for something that supposedly "ISN'T" effective? Your own source doesn't bolster your argument, THAT's what's called, "grasping" for straws. Nothing in there proved me wrong, that WMD were used in Iraq POST INVASION! Either way, even your responses acknowledge the existence of a chemical agent in Iraq post invasion. Piece of advice, something isn't fact if it's wrong, all but one of your "facts" were OPINIONS. The only one that qualified as a fact was their use during the Iraq-Iran War. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Deadly Nerve Agent Sarin Is Found in Roadside Bomb (washingtonpost) But weapons experts cautioned that the shell appeared to predate the 1991 Persian Gulf War and did not necessarily mean that Hussein possessed hidden stockpiles of chemical munitions.(Doesn't matter, sarin gas is a chemical agent, hence WMD. It was used against our troops post invasion. When it was made, or its quality, is beside the point. It proves wrong the claims that there were "no" WMD in Iraq.) Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad that The Iraq Survey Group confirmed yesterday that it had found a 155mm artillery shell containing sarin. (Again, sarin is a chemical agent, it's a WMD, and it was used against our troops post invasion. This proves wrong the lies that Iraq had "no" WMD.) Kimmitt said the round containing the nerve agent had been rigged as a roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device, but was discovered by a U.S. military convoy. (Which happened to be driving by AFTER the invasion, which means that Iraq had WMD.) A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable," Kimmitt said. "This produced a very small dispersal of agent. . . . Two explosive ordnance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round." (Not exactly "ineffective" as you'd like to argue. If it were "ineffective," treatment wouldn't have taken place.) Experts familiar with Iraq's chemical weapons program said the shell was likely a leftover from Hussein's pre-Gulf War stockpile. Iraq acknowledged producing nearly 800 tons of sarin and thousands of sarin-filled rockets and artillery shells between 1984 and 1990. (Trying to place this before the invasion amounts to a red herring, this doesn't dismiss the fact that a chem. agent was discovered in Iraq post invasion.) ..Kay, the former leader of the Iraq Survey Group, said the shell was likely one of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war. While the Hussein government claimed that all leftover chemical munitions had been destroyed in accordance with U.N. Security Council requirements, it is possible that some were overlooked, hidden or stolen. Before the U.S.-led invasion last year, U.N. weapons inspectors found several empty chemical warheads for rockets and a small number of artillery shells filled with mustard gas. (Fuck yeah some were overlooked! Service members ended up getting treated because of sarin gas exposure! That WAS overlooked! But all the same, it proves wrong the LIE that there were no WMD in Iraq!) WHERE, in YOUR QUOTE, does it say that Iraq had "NO" WMD during and after the Invasion? The above quote is PRECISELY what I was talking about when I said this: "The mainstream media either failed to report it, buried it, or conducted massive spin over it, in order to carry on the canard that Iraq had "no" WMD." -herfacechair. Massive spin on a fact that you're deliberately ignoring, that sarin gas, a CHEMICAL AGENT was in Iraq post invasion, proving the "no" WMD in Iraq LIE wrong! Quit trying to pull straws.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:22:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: p quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Dude... you are wasting your time with RO.... sorry, that's just how it is...:) you are right but I am not going to waste my time with him. I dont dance with bullshit very well. Everything that tard says wreaks of gi joe here we go. Good sounding bullshit but bullshit nonetheless. He just repeated everything he said last time. No need to blast it again. "You are wasting your time WITH RO" -Jeffff "You are right but I am not going to waste my time with him." -RO Who's the tard now? I'm taking it that those hours you spent sitting on the crapper made you speechless when you came back here. [8\|] However, your post here indicates that the intellectual/common sense side of you is seeing that I have an argument, that I have a valid point, and that what I say is factual. Your ego, on the other hand, is overruling what common sense and intellect is telling you, by dismissing what you subconsciously see as a fact as "good sounding bullshit." Nope, your ego is refusing to give up the belief that you've consistently held over the past few years. It's ironic that you claim that I said the same things again, while ignoring the fact that you made the same comments, which caused me to provide a very similar rebuttal. Oh and your second major is psychology eh.... LMAO I recognize you are trying to formulate an argument which any child can form a lunatic baseless argument therefore lending no credence to it having any validity. If you wish to understand what I said; think of the word "plausible". It means bullshit. Good bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless. which means we clap just a little bit louder for you than we do for lame bullshit. I hope I have cleared up your misconceptions and sorry if ruined your customer base. What you've done here was show us the results of the stress shields that you've set up. Notice how you didn't even lift a finger to try to prove me "wrong." You just pulled more crap from your rear end just to have something to say. There's no need for me to try to understand something that I'm already understanding. The tape that we both saw, which you haven't gone back to discuss, clearly showed that men were armed. You argued that they weren't, I argued that they were. Anybody watching that same tape would see that they were armed. Despite all the hot air you're ejecting here, even you had to see that those men were armed. Your intellect told you that those men were armed, but your arrogance, holding onto something you've agreed to previous to this discussion, refused to admit that you were wrong. Instead of admitting that your accounts were wrong, you try to protect your fragile ego with stress shields to give yourself the false sense of "not" being :wrong." It was easier for you to claim that I was "bullshitting" than it was for you to swallow your pride and admit that you were wrong. You're still in that state.

ShoreBound149 -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:23:01 PM)
Back from the beach......fucking windy........just like here

domiguy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:23:33 PM)
You still didn't address the fact that everyone aside from ONE person that served under Kerry has said nothing or only positive things about him. You are a liar. You never served. You are supposedly on leave. Glad to know you are spending your time with us in lieu of people that actually might give a shit about your existence. You are full of shit and a liar.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:25:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: In my previous posts, I deliberately left some facts out, with regards to Halliburton and its association with Iraq. You admit lying but you don't seem remorseful. You lie. You brag that you lie. You are not remorseful for lieing. Yet you want us to believe you...why? What I said, which you deliberately left out, that explained why I left those facts out: "In my previous posts, I deliberately left some facts out, with regards to Halliburton and its association with Iraq. I did this because of the Halliburton views held by leftwing posters. You, thompsonx, responded exactly as I expected you to respond. Not to advance the facts I deliberately held back with regards to Halliburton."-herfacechair What were these Halliburton related views? And what did I mean by my saying that you responded exactly as I expected you'd respond? "As a stock holder in Halliburton, Ratheon,Olin Matheson and Winchester Western I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to you and your comrads in arms for helping with the black ink on the bottom line. Happy stockholder" -thompsonx Bottom line, you liberals accuse the government of doing things like going into Iraq to make companies, like Halliburton, rich. I played along with you, just to get you to respond a certain way... you did, exactly as I expected you to respond. Then I dropped the bomb... that it was KBR, not Halliburton, that was doing the things you associated with Halliburton. Then I continued to demonstrate, using your own words, how you didn't know what you were talking about. You see, isn't it amazing how my story comes out when you include everything that I say... instead of what you normally do, deliberately leave facts out about what I said? By your own definition, you're guilty of lying but not being remorseful, of wanting us to believe you with your deception as to what I'm actually saying.

domiguy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:27:59 PM)
Don't you have to go and get to Iraq soon, You have never been there have you?

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:28:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: "The above companies would've made money during peace time as they would've during war time." - herfacechair The facts are that those companies doing the same sort of work as halliburton that are not in the sand box are currently not doing so well while halliburton thrives. In 2005 when the sand box got lit up halliburton was selling for $20 a share. It went up and did a 2 for 1 split and today it is at about $27 even after spending hundreds of millions to buy "boots & Coots". I said that those companies would make money, regardless of whether they're at war or not. Your statement doesn't prove that wrong... in fact, from the same post that you got that quote from: "Whether you make 5 dollars now, 10 dollars tomorrow, as opposed to 1 dollar yesterday is beside the point, you made money yesterday, today, and will make it tomorrow in this example. Earning money is earning money, regardless of the size of your earnings." -herfacechair Your quoted statement proves my analogy correct, using real world examples. However, you're continuing to dismiss this fact, what I also expressed from the same post you quote from: "Well, According to Halliburton, they're not involved with providing logistics services in Iraq. In other words, we're NOT making you money as you claimed." -herfacechair Which contradicts your statement: "The facts are that those companies doing the same sort of work as halliburton that are not in the sand box are currently not doing so well while halliburton thrives."-thompsonx Again, according to Halliburton's own website, Halliburton isn't involved with providing logistics to the sandbox. Since Halliburton isn't in the sandbox (I'll take their word over yours), and they're making money as you claimed, doing well as you've stated, then your statement, as quoted, is wrong. It's amazing how your statements actually bolster my argument, and not yours. You're turning out to be one of my best allies. For that, I thank you.

Real0ne -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Don't you have to go and get blown up soon? I htink he has a posting bot

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:32:19 PM)
thompsonx: Can you tell all of us ignorant children what it means when you say that halliburton is no longer supplying logistic services in iraq? Halliburton is an energy company, not a logistics and services company for the troops. Halliburton was assumed to provide such services because its subsidiary, KBR was the company that provided those services to the troops. From Chron dot com: KBR is officially out on its own--Oil-field-services giant Halliburton Co. said Thursday it had finally broken ties with KBR, its contracting, engineering and construction unit, which had been a part of the company for 44 years. From Halliburton's website: "Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. Notice, that it doesn't say, "to the troops in Iraq," no, it says, "products and services to the energy industry. As someone that allegedly holds stock there, you should've already known that. thompsonx: Does it mean that halliburton oil services division is not active in the oil fields in iraq? RED HERRING The quote that my post addresses: "As a stock holder in Halliburton, Ratheon,Olin Matheson and Winchester Western I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to you and your comrads in arms for helping with the black ink on the bottom line. Happy stockholder" -thompsonx Your quote here thanks the troops for doing something they didn't do... make money for Halliburton. As you state above, Halliburton is involved with oil services division, and oil fields, nowhere in your question do you state that Halliburton is providing logistics services to the troops. Halliburton's own website doesn't support the misconception that they're a company that provides troop logistics services. Whether they're in Iraq's oil fields or not is beside the point, you claimed that we were making you money, through Halliburton. A statement that doesn't reflect reality, as we receive our services from KBR, not Halliburton. KBR isn't mentioned in your statement "expressing your heartfelt thanks." Halliburton is involved with energy companies around the world, so they'll make money regardless of us being at war or not... which is what I've argued: "The above companies would've made money during peace time as they would've during war time." - herfacechair thompsonx: Does it mean the halliburton construction division is not active in replacing the infrastructure that we destroyed with "shock and awe"? From Halliburton's website: "Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. Notice, that it doesn't say, "to build national infastructor," no, it says, "products and services to the energy industry. Also, Iraq's infrastructure took 3 decades of decay to get into the state of disrepair that I saw while there. There's a difference between decay and erosion, and something that was destroyed by war. From KBR's website: "As a leader in the engineering, construction and service industries, KBR has dedicated its work to building and supporting global infrastructures." -KBR KBR provided that service to the troops, as well as to the Iraqis rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by decades of neglect. If you were the Halliburton stockholder that you claimed you were, you'd be aware of that fact, and wouldn't have dismissed KBR as an investment option. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Or... Does it mean that you are lying once again by telling only part of the truth. If you lie and brag about it and then get caught in more lies how can you expect anyone to believe anything you post? No, I told the truth, don't mistake your deliberately withholding my comments as me withholding the truth. You didn't catch me in a lie, what actually happened is that I called you out for cherry picking my posts so that you could take it out of context, aka, SPIN your own web of deceit, of what I talked about. As you could see from my response to this post, I'm not lying, you are. Heck, you're making claims that a stockholder wouldn't make about a company he supposedly has stocks in.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:35:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair I've never changed my mind based on something said by the people I've debated with... I've always walked away from an argument with the same standing/assessment that I had before getting into the argument. That truly speaks volumes about you. Indeed, that is a remarkable statement. I have never seen a rightie come out and actually admit that he is impervious to facts. The reason to why I've never changed my mind based on what someone I've argued with has said is because they hardly ever give me facts. The vast majority give me rhetoric, and outright false information based on biases, spin, and misconception. The rest cherry pick the facts, and SPIN a web of BS. They've yet to present me with facts, those are the things that'll get me to change my position. Don't assume that your assumptions, and misconceptions, are "facts," and my refusal to accept such as "fact" as my being "impervious" of facts. That's just me being impervious to bullshit. However, time to expose you for who you really are, hint, it's not the "neutral, outside looking in," poster that you're trying to portray yourself as: From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq" "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [ ] NO [ ] I don't want your SPIN... simply copy and paste everything from "From MSNBC" all the way to "YES [ ] NO [ ]." Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the facts are on your side, you'd be able to answer it per instructions, and you'd be able to answer it without looking stupid. If you feel the need to try to baffle me with bullshit, to avoid what I'm requiring you to do, then obviously you've got no confidence in your statement that I'm, "impervious to facts." Your failure to answer this per the constraints I list, will prove this true: "Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say." - Ann Coulter

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: What's actually been widely reported is that their THEN subsidiary, Kellog Brown & Root, aka KBR, has the contracts. They've since parted paths, so it's just KBR providing the services/holding the contracts, not Halliburton. Just how did this happen? Did halliburton just give the contracts to kbr? Did halliburton get paid for those contracts? Does halliburton get a residual on those contacts? Does halliburton get a percentage of those contracts? More disingenuous bullshit...do you have any idea how obvious your bullshit is? From the New York Times: "Halliburton, the oil field contractor, said second-quarter net income more than doubled on a gain from selling its government services and construction subsidiary, KBR. Profit climbed to $1.53 billion, or $1.62 a share, from $591 million, or 55 cents a share, a year earlier, the company, based in Houston, said yesterday. Excluding the $933 million gain on the sale of KBR and a $49 million gain on the sale of an investment, the company earned 60 cents a share, up from 47 cents in the 2006 quarter. Revenue rose 20 percent, to $3.74 billion." - New York Times HMMMM! What do we have here? Their stocks JUMPED when they sold the company that's actually involved with logistics services to the troops, you know, that company that's in the sandbox! As a Halliburton "stockholder," you should've KNOWN that, but your posts demonstrate that you didn't, as evidenced by this: "Just how did this happen?" -thompsonx In response to this: "What's actually been widely reported is that their THEN subsidiary, Kellog Brown & Root, aka KBR, has the contracts. They've since parted paths, so it's just KBR providing the services/holding the contracts, not Halliburton." -herfacechair

mikeyOfGeorgia -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:38:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: mikeyOfGeorgia quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair I'm here on R and R from Iraq. Ben deployed there with 1 ID. Figured I'd start a thread to answer questions you guys may have about what's going on there. [:D] why is America still there? they already screwed up and didn't get Bin Ladin. it's no longer our problem. Can anyone remember Vietnam? We bring nothing but love and joy to the entire world. However- when a country wont allow a central bank- we bomb them. it's not America's place to police the world. America is full of BS and the only thing it's good at is dictating to the world what they should do or not so. Kinda like Hitler and ancient Germany.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:40:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I'm going to put my military hat aside for a moment, and put my MBA hat on. You have an mba and are playing soldier boy in the sandbox[8\|] There are plenty of service members that have an MBA, and are serving overseas. It's like I said, I'm serving for a cause that's obviously beyond your understanding. thompsonx: Or a leasing company that does not begin to pay for it till it goes out on lease then the payment is a portion of what ever the leasing company is getting. Which bolsters my point, it represents something that you could convert to cash. It'd be stupid to write these off instead of making money from it. Until it's sold, it represents an asset in another form... aka inventory. What business, in its right mind, would abandon something that it could convert to cash in the future? thompsonx: Perhaps when it is leased to the federal government (leases would necessarily be insured either by a third party or self insured by the government.) it becomes abandoned property because of maintainence failures and is written down. These generators weren't leased, they were sold to the government, so they're no longer part of the seller's inventory, which makes it something that's not applicable to your statement that this is "floor inventory." It wasn't.

Aylee -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikeyOfGeorgia it's not America's place to police the world. Who would you suggest do it? quote: America is full of BS Such as? Or are you refering to the fact that we have flush toliets? quote: and the only thing it's good at is dictating to the world what they should do or not so. Yeah. Right. That is why everyone does things the "American" way. And why children have been sent home from school for wearing t-shirts with the American flag on them. [8\|] quote: Kinda like Hitler and ancient Germany. I am now invoking Godwin's Law. Reductio Ad Hitlerum.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:44:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Since you're a tax payer, then you're paying for alleged KBR loses as a taxpayer. Since you obviously are going to stay away from KBR until things "blow over," the money they earn, while in the sand box, isn't yours as a non KBR "stockholder." RED HERRING STATEMENT It would appear that your mba hat has slid down over your eyes and is obscuring your vision. Stock holder gets a $100 dollar dividend. If that stock holder makes over $100 K a year the government is entitled to 28% of everything over $100K of taxable income. Why would the taxpayer mind paying some fractional part of that 28% to cover the loss of those generators. The shareholder would get to keep the rest so why should he care. You do know the reason that kbr and halliburton don't sleep together anymore don't you? RED HERRING STATEMENT The problem is that my MBA hat didn't slide down to cover my eyes. What's actually happening is that your large horse blinders continue to prevent you from seeing the obvious... that your attempts to baffle me with your bullshit isn't working... and it's preventing you from seeing that you still didn't bolster your argument, or prove mine wrong: Your own quotes: "As a stock holder in Halliburton, Ratheon,Olin Matheson and Winchester Western I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to you and your comrads in arms for helping with the black ink on the bottom line. Happy stockholder" -thompsonx WHERE, in YOUR statement, do you claim to be a KBR stockholder? What you said in response to my suggesting that you invest in a stocks of a company that's actually in the sandbox: "There are other issues with KBR...loss carry overs ...it could pose a tax problem so I will just avoid them till things blow over." -thompsonx Which means, that we, as service members, are dealing with KBR, a company that you're avoiding, hence we're NOT making you money, as you claimed.

belladevine -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/9/2010 3:45:33 PM)
I hope you get called to Afghanistan soon. I hear the poppies are a poppin and they will be hittin our streets soon. Isn't it great that US troops protect the Inter-National Botany Society.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.570313E-02