Anything you say can, and will, be used.
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
This does serve some useful function. Take groklaw for instance. PJ does some extremely detailed analysis of both their public statements and their legal filings.
This is helped by the contribution of the experts that read her site. That is how the code that leaked out was so quickly identified along with the various circumstances under which it was released.
IBM can use this information to ask the judge to toss out SCO's case. This saves IBM some time and gives IBM hours of expert research and approaches that the IBM legal team might not otherwise have thought of.
If this case goes to trial, IBM can use the same material to tear apart SCO's case.
Also, Red Hat can use this material in its case against SCO.
"Fishing" is not allowed.
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 4, Informative
IANAL
You cannot request EVERYTHING. The stuff you request has to apply to the case.
That's why it shouldn't matter what IBM has in versions of AIX that were NOT released.
As for the stuff about demanding that IBM identify all the code it contributed to Linux........
That is what SCO originally claimed. SCO says that IBM contributed code that IBM did not have the righ to contribute without SCO's permission.
Now SCO is demanding to see the code that IBM contributed.
This is what is known as "Fishing". You demand EVERYTHING and hope to find SOMETHING that is actionable. And "Fishing" is not allowed.
And there aren't any holes in my position. If there were, you'd be pointing them out and harping on them.
You are the one that doesn't understand debate. You're all over the place with your posts. You support Bush, you don't support Bush. You would support stuff that Bush wouldn't support. Whatever.
Mostly, I find it amusing that you use "terrorism" as a reason for Bush to invade Iraq when the White House has already issued a statement that it had no evidence that Saddam had any connections to al Queda.
"But what I'm saying is, if WMD are never found (and haven't been so far), then it was justification enough to take out Saddam just from the fact that he's a murderous criminal."
So, taking out one "murderous criminal" is worth over $100 Billion? Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But I don't think you'll get much support for that one. We'd have to spend over $1 TRILLION just in the mid-east with THAT kind of "logic".
Not to mention the number of US troops that will be KILLED.
Oh, you're one of THOSE, aren't you?
No price is too high for your beliefs. As long as SOMEONE ELSE is paying it.
For my part, I view his killing as an IRAQI issue. To be handled by the Iraqi people.
Much like you don't know the meaning of "de facto", you don't know the meaning of the word "strawman".
I said that they could have put the contract up for bid.
You said that they did and that Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
I said that Halliburton won the LOGCAP, but that didn't mean that they had to use Halliburton. I said they could put the Iraq contract up for bid.
You said they did and that Haliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
Do you want me to post links to your posts where you said that?
Once again, the government did NOT have to use Halliburton. The government SHOULD have put the contract up for open bids and SHOULD have included mid-east companies.
Now is when you come back and say that it WAS up for open bid and that Halliburton won it.
Just like you said here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88026&thresh ol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&cid=7629 390
"Can you not read? There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it! They do this on a regular basis, not when a war is in progress or being planned. One reason is to avoid the bias of the current administration."
Well, your own words, quoted, in context, with reference link.
Main Entry: de facto Function: adjective Date: circa 1689 1 : ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized 2 : exercising power as if legally constituted
They won a formal bidding process. The were formally recognized and legal.
There was nothing "de facto" about it.
"Nowhere did I state they HAD to go with Halliburton."
Yet you kept arguing that they did have to go with Halliburton because Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
I was the one pointing out that winning the LOGCAP bid did NOT mean that they had to use them. I said that in multiple posts. Don't try to get out of that now. I said that while they could LEGALLY issue the contract to Halliburton, without bids, that was not what they SHOULD have done.
I said they SHOULD have started a bidding process that INCLUDED companies from the mid-east.
"I'm sorry, I can't go on arguing with you because you continue to misrepresent what I said and then you attack this strawman. This is a common tactic of someone who is arguing an illogical point."
You're just unhappy that with all the stuff you claimed to have read, I'm the one that had to provide you with links to actual events.
Where's the strawman? I'm saying that Bush didn't finish Afghanistan before he got us into Iraq. I'm saying that he lied to get us into Iraq. I'm saying that he did everything wrong in Iraq. I'm saying that the Iraqi people are NOT happy with us and will end up with a theocracy when Bush finally cuts his losses and runs before the next election.
I've said that I can PROVE that I said that Iraq did not have any "WMD's" PRIOR to our invasion so there's none of this "hindsight" bullshit your tried to pull.
Not to mention that you tried to blame this on Clinton.
Well, toddle along. I've given you enough of an education today. Maybe SOME of it will sink in.
"Well lets see, I never said that I wouldn't support helping the people in Africa."
So you don't support Bush because he didn't go into Africa. Is that what you're saying?
"If you disagree then fine...he would still be in power today then killing more people (he didn't just do that in the past)."
The US killed more Iraqis during our Invasion than Saddam had killed in the past year. Sad, but true. So, from a pure body count, the Iraqi people would have been better off with Saddam than with Bush.
"Yes diplomacy was a good idea and in hindsight it probably would have been best to keep going...but given the circumstances Bush had to deal with - after 911 and the threat of terrorism."
Bullshit. There were enough peace marches with enough people that there is no "hindsight" on this issue. Just like there is no "threat of terrorism" because there wasn't any evidence that Saddam was linked to al Queda.
In fact, al Queda has a completely different viewpoint than Saddam. Saddam is very secular.
"How did he know whether Saddam wouldn't be a threat to the US?"
Simple, Saddam didn't have any weapons that could reach the US. The US still had a military presence in Kuwait.
"Looking back is such a convenience...but you don't know these things until after it's already happened!"
Again, bullshit. Bush claimed to have "darn good" intelligence that Saddam had "WMD's" but he would NOT provide that to the UN inspectors to verify. Now it looks like Bush did not have ANY information. Just fantasies.
"I for one don't want to see anymore U.S. citizens killed."
Then stop reading the paper because US citizens are dieing in Iraq.
"I don't want to see anyone killed for that matter including Iraqi soldiers, but we at the time of *war* (in stars because we didn't official declare it constitutionally) must unfortunately kill some soldiers...that's what war is."
The US invaded another country, without any IMMEDIATE threat from that country. I don't care what you WANT to see. It happened and closing your eyes will not make it go away.
"I'm not just trying to defend Bush but moreso trying to get YOU to see that your arguments use the convenience of hindsight like I mentioned before."
And suppose I were to provide you with an example of me saying that there would not be any "WMD's" found PRIOR to our invasion?
What would that do to your "hindsight" arguement?
Think about it. Because I can prove it.
"Try being the President for one day and I think you'd have a whole new respect for the job. I for one would never want that job...too much pressure."
Cool. I'll take your challenge. Get Bush out and I'll take over for a day.
"For example, when I say something like "read between the lines," and then I follow that up with more information about what I mean."
No, "read between the lines" means that there is a meaning there in addition to the information confered by the statement.
"Yes, they are. Since LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process, you can interpolate it in your sentences to read: They should have used a competitive bidding process, not a competitive bidding process [i.e. LOGCAP]. That is why it is contradictory."
Okay, once again, really slowly for you. Because Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid that does NOT mean that they HAD to be given the contract for Iraq.
You have a problem with that fact and there is no amount of explaining that will get that through your head.
The government was NOT in any way required to award that contract to Halliburton.
Despite your claims to the contrary, they were not.
You even posted a previous instance where Clinton awarded a contract to Halliburton despite Halliburton losing the LOGCAP bid.
But then you claim that the winner of the LOGCAP bid has to get those contracts.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
"Bush never claimed a war zone would be safe, did he?"
He said he made the world safer. Yet now we have more attacks than before. You don't understand a thing.
"Do you think these attacks would have decreased if we let Saddam continue to control Iraq?"
How many attacks were there on US citizens in 1999? Now we have 10 - 20 a day.
Leaving Saddam in Iraq would have resulted in a few thousand fewer attacks, given historical data available from 1990 - 2000.
"I heard you say that, however you provided no details, no facts."
Damn, you read all those news sources and you need ME to provide you with references?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1202IraqS ol dierDeaths02-ON.html
http://charleston.net/stories/070703/ter_07iraq. sh tml
How did you manage to miss things like that in your widespread readings?
1. Yes. 2. Yes, yes, yes. 3. No. 4. Yes.
With your "read between the lines", you're trying to imply that the majority of Iraqis would rather have the US occupation.
Yet the facts don't seem to support that. Rather we have reports of groups of Iraqis celebrating that US troops are being killed.
"What is your solution to the mess of terrorism and Iraq, by the way? The war in the middle east is not perfect, but the goals are noble -- to make the world more free, to destroy terrorists, to help the people that need it the most."
No, we went in to control the oil.
That's why Bush had to lie about the yellow cake and nukes.
That's why Bush had to lie about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
That's why Bush had to imply that there was a connection between Saddam and al Queda.
That's why Bush had to lie about the "darn good" intelligence that he had from Iraqi exiles.
That's why our people are being killed over there, 6 months after the "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush is now blaming on sailors.
If the war is to make the world more free, then why aren't we spending more money and troops helping Afghanistan?
If the war is to destroy terrorists, then why aren't we spending more money and troops helping Afghanistan (we KNOW they had al Queda there)?
If the war is to help the people that need it the most, then why aren't we spending more money and time in Afghanistan where warloards control everything except Kabul?
Why didn't we move into Africa when they were STILL KILLING PEOPLE?
Those are the facts. I'm not surprise that someone like you can claim to read so much, yet miss so much reporting.
"I suppose you would have said to leave Hitler in power back in WWII if you don't think we should have taken Saddam out."
Suppose all you want.
Hitler was invading other countries. Saddam wasn't.
Saddam had already been kicked out of Kuwait.
Saddam was not a threat to the US nor could the US afford the expense of nation-building when we already had Afghanistan to fix.
"So I'm saying is don't put on Bush or the Republicans what Bill Clinton should have done a long time ago."
But Clinton did NOT do it. You keep missing that point.
Why are you trying to blame Clinton for something he did not do?
Is it just because you don't have any other support for Bush?
Too bad.
"Just from the fack that Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own people was justification enough to remove him from power."
Had murdered. We didn't prevent any NEW killings.
Meanwhile, we were ignoring certain events in Africa where the killings were HAPPENING AT THAT VERY MOMENT.
So, you think it is better to let someone kill hundreds of thousands of people just so we can "get" someone who kill a lot of people YEARS EARLIER?
That's some seriously messed up priorities you got there.
I'd say, keep the sanctions on Iraq and give the UN inspectors the time and info they need while we go and help people who we still have a chance of saving.
It would have cost us less AND we'd have a better chance of establishing another democracy.
"In reality, the backbone story was already done. All the writers had to do was take an obscure, yet interesting, story and flesh it out a bit and transfer it to the stars."
You are a GENIUS!
Not to mention that we have about 2,000 years worth of literature.
You say people didn't complain about Halliburton back with Clinton.
So, Bush would still be wrong for giving Halliburton that contract.
"There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it!"
No, there wasn't. Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid process.
The LOGCAP bid process was NOT for re-building of Iraq.
All that means is that Bush had the OPTION of assigning the contract for Iraq to Halliburton without going through a bidding process.
"Why is this "more sensible?" It would seem more sensible for America to pay an American company that has won the LOGCAP, which is what happened."
And that kind of "logic" is why we have Bush blaming the sailors for that "Mission Accomplished" banner.
No, it would be more sensible to hire a mid-east company. A company with ties to other companies and people over there so that we can point out how THEY are the ones in control of THEIR future now.
"Man, he failed miserably then since the oil fields there still belong to Iraq."
Now you're starting to get the picture. He failed in finding "WMD's", he failed in catching Saddam, he failed in stopping terrorist attacks, he failed in just about everything.
Now he's talking about cutting his losses right before the election and letting Iraq vote in democracy.
Instead, we'll see another Iranian-style theocracy.
"However, once the U.S (Halliburton) fixes the oil pipelines so that the oil can be sold, the money will actually go to help the people of Iraq instead of into Saddam Hussein's coffers."
The US doesn't care who gets the money, as long as it isn't the enemy of the week. The Taliban were being catered to in Texas while Bush was in charge there.
The way this is going, the oil money will be going to the clerics.
"Do you honestly think the Iraqi's that currently are waiting for us to finish up and leave, are actually going to allow the U.S. to "control" the oil fields of Iraq?"
Do you mean the ones that are shooting at our troops over there?
The ORIGINAL plan was to have the US's puppets be elected by a grateful populace.
That failed. Those same puppets are the ones that gave the US the bogus info on the "WMD's" that Saddam had.
"Iraq will sell us oil at a reasonable price because we liberated them from a cruel dictator and rebuilt the parts of the oil field that were destroyed by Saddam's army and the guerrillas."
They're still shooting at our troops. That doesn't look like gratitude to me.
They dance around the wrecks after their guerrillas bomb our convoys. That doesn't look like gratitude to me.
An Iraqi man can shoot a US troop in the head and then run into a crowd that will cover his trail. That doesn't sound like gratitude to me.
You have the same blindness that Bush and company did.
The Iraqis do NOT like us. They still blame US for those sanctions all those years.
They blame US for the civilians killed during our invasion.
If we had a popular vote, you'd see a theocracy like Iran has.
Halliburton is in the energy business. They do things like build oil rigs and such.
You do realize that you're quoting someone who wastes 4 paragraphs telling you how dumb people he doesn't like are, don't you?
"Did Bush or Cheney do something underhanded or illegal in handing some rather lucrative contracts to Halliburton for infrastructure and other work in Iraq?"
Yes. They did.
"We'll start with another question you can ask your bedwetting leftist friends."
He's continuing to insult people he doesn't even know.
"In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions."
So?
Is the point here that Bill Clinton is Jesus or something?
You are aware that Bill Clinton lied about sex with Monica, aren't you?
But if he says Halliburton is okay, then they're OKAY.
"You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton."
So he thinks that Gore is Jesus, also?
"This means that at the time of the Iraq War Halliburton had the bid for providing logistical and other services to the U.S. government."
Yes, that is correct.
But that does not mean what you think it does.
There is nothing ruling out a competitive bid process. And it would seem to be more sensible to have a company in that region doing the work.
"To the left this is all the proof you needed to show that this whole war was about oil and enriching Bush pals."
No, the war was about the nukes that Saddam was building with that yellow cake from Niger.
Oops. Sorry, that was shown to be faked, and our government knew it was faked when Bush said it.
The war was really about those huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam had.
Oops. It seems that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he didn't have any. It also looks like the UN inspectors were not idiots the way the Right kept saying they were.
What we REALLY went to war with Iraq for was to STOP TERRORISM.
Except that now Bush admits that there weren't any links between Iraq and anti-US terrorism. And now we're seeing a whole lot of terrorist attacks on US troops and Iraqis that support the US. So terrorism has INCREASED. That's quite the achievement.
No, the REALLY REAL reason we went to war was to liberate the Iraqi people.
Except we're now talking about cutting our losses and leaving before they have established a democratic government. Not to mention that any DEMOCRATIC vote will probably result in a RELIGIOUS leader and a move toward Iranian-style theocracy.
Some people will never admit that the US was trying to control the Iraqi oil fields. No matter how many lies are revealed.
"Then ask them if Bush went to Iraq to enrich Halliburton."
No. Bush declared war to gain control of the oil fields.
Halliburton was the company chosen to provide the means of exploiting that oil.
Getting money for Halliburton was just a nice way for Bush to show his appreciation for his friends.
Because we don't have enough money to pay teachers as it is.
Yes, the Social Security taxes are not saved for future generations. But that doesn't mean we should cut benefits.
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion on whether Oregon is spending their education money incorrectly. A big budget with big expenses is NOT an indication to money is not being spent wisely.
You might THINK that we don't need those manufacturing jobs. But if we don't PRODUCE something, we don't have anything to SELL.
We cannot survive by selling insurance to each other.
The deficit is over $500 Billion AND CLIMBING.
That is just THIS YEAR.
That means that we will have ANOTHER $1 TRILLION added to our national debt by the end of next year.
This is a BIG problem. It means that MORE MONEY will have to be paid in INTEREST on that debt.
There is a difference between losing money in the stock market and having those funds looted.
Why don't you check into Bush's recommendations for the SEC?
C'mon, be honest, you like Bush because you don't understand basic economics.
How about if Bush announces a balanced budget, and sticks to it, that doesn't cut social security or education but does include enough funding for NASA to get to the moon?
People don't hate Bush because he's Bush.
People hate his "if you ain't with me, you're against me" policies.
The situation is a LOT more complicated than you believe.
We have states (OR) that do not have enough money to pay teachers.
We've lost millions of manufacturing jobs.
We have a HUGE deficit.
We're sending over $100 Billion to Iraq.
We're still sending money to Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, we still have things like the financial mess that is taking BILLIONS of dollars out of people's retirement funds.
But how about having UserLinux-KDE and UserLinux-Gnome? Just not together.
The core Linux would be the same, of course.
But one distribution would be focused on Gnome and the other on KDE.
We don't even need both versions to start. Just think about the naming scheme so that the other can be added later (if anyone wants to).
Something else, look at Knoppix. Make UserLinux a live CD so people can test out their system BEFORE going through the install.
That way, if something goes horribly, horribly wrong, YOU CAN STILL GET TO THE INTERNET TO LOOK UP THE ANSWER. Or you can put off the install until you can get a compatible NIC or video card or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
This does serve some useful function. Take groklaw for instance. PJ does some extremely detailed analysis of both their public statements and their legal filings.
This is helped by the contribution of the experts that read her site. That is how the code that leaked out was so quickly identified along with the various circumstances under which it was released.
IBM can use this information to ask the judge to toss out SCO's case. This saves IBM some time and gives IBM hours of expert research and approaches that the IBM legal team might not otherwise have thought of.
If this case goes to trial, IBM can use the same material to tear apart SCO's case.
Also, Red Hat can use this material in its case against SCO.
IANAL
You cannot request EVERYTHING. The stuff you request has to apply to the case.
That's why it shouldn't matter what IBM has in versions of AIX that were NOT released.
As for the stuff about demanding that IBM identify all the code it contributed to Linux........
That is what SCO originally claimed. SCO says that IBM contributed code that IBM did not have the righ to contribute without SCO's permission.
Now SCO is demanding to see the code that IBM contributed.
This is what is known as "Fishing". You demand EVERYTHING and hope to find SOMETHING that is actionable. And "Fishing" is not allowed.
http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?co ntentid=90758
And there aren't any holes in my position. If there were, you'd be pointing them out and harping on them.
You are the one that doesn't understand debate. You're all over the place with your posts. You support Bush, you don't support Bush. You would support stuff that Bush wouldn't support. Whatever.
Mostly, I find it amusing that you use "terrorism" as a reason for Bush to invade Iraq when the White House has already issued a statement that it had no evidence that Saddam had any connections to al Queda.
"But what I'm saying is, if WMD are never found (and haven't been so far), then it was justification enough to take out Saddam just from the fact that he's a murderous criminal."
So, taking out one "murderous criminal" is worth over $100 Billion? Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But I don't think you'll get much support for that one. We'd have to spend over $1 TRILLION just in the mid-east with THAT kind of "logic".
Not to mention the number of US troops that will be KILLED.
Oh, you're one of THOSE, aren't you?
No price is too high for your beliefs. As long as SOMEONE ELSE is paying it.
For my part, I view his killing as an IRAQI issue. To be handled by the Iraqi people.
Much like you don't know the meaning of "de facto", you don't know the meaning of the word "strawman".
h ol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&cid=7629 390
I said that they could have put the contract up for bid.
You said that they did and that Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
I said that Halliburton won the LOGCAP, but that didn't mean that they had to use Halliburton. I said they could put the Iraq contract up for bid.
You said they did and that Haliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
Do you want me to post links to your posts where you said that?
Once again, the government did NOT have to use Halliburton. The government SHOULD have put the contract up for open bids and SHOULD have included mid-east companies.
Now is when you come back and say that it WAS up for open bid and that Halliburton won it.
Just like you said here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88026&thres
"Can you not read? There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it! They do this on a regular basis, not when a war is in progress or being planned. One reason is to avoid the bias of the current administration."
Well, your own words, quoted, in context, with reference link.
Go ahead and say that you didn't say that.
"de facto"
From www.m-w.com
Main Entry: de facto
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1689
1 : ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized
2 : exercising power as if legally constituted
They won a formal bidding process. The were formally recognized and legal.
There was nothing "de facto" about it.
"Nowhere did I state they HAD to go with Halliburton."
Yet you kept arguing that they did have to go with Halliburton because Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid.
I was the one pointing out that winning the LOGCAP bid did NOT mean that they had to use them. I said that in multiple posts. Don't try to get out of that now. I said that while they could LEGALLY issue the contract to Halliburton, without bids, that was not what they SHOULD have done.
I said they SHOULD have started a bidding process that INCLUDED companies from the mid-east.
"I'm sorry, I can't go on arguing with you because you continue to misrepresent what I said and then you attack this strawman. This is a common tactic of someone who is arguing an illogical point."
You're just unhappy that with all the stuff you claimed to have read, I'm the one that had to provide you with links to actual events.
Where's the strawman? I'm saying that Bush didn't finish Afghanistan before he got us into Iraq. I'm saying that he lied to get us into Iraq. I'm saying that he did everything wrong in Iraq. I'm saying that the Iraqi people are NOT happy with us and will end up with a theocracy when Bush finally cuts his losses and runs before the next election.
I've said that I can PROVE that I said that Iraq did not have any "WMD's" PRIOR to our invasion so there's none of this "hindsight" bullshit your tried to pull.
Not to mention that you tried to blame this on Clinton.
Well, toddle along. I've given you enough of an education today. Maybe SOME of it will sink in.
"Well lets see, I never said that I wouldn't support helping the people in Africa."
So you don't support Bush because he didn't go into Africa. Is that what you're saying?
"If you disagree then fine...he would still be in power today then killing more people (he didn't just do that in the past)."
The US killed more Iraqis during our Invasion than Saddam had killed in the past year. Sad, but true. So, from a pure body count, the Iraqi people would have been better off with Saddam than with Bush.
"Yes diplomacy was a good idea and in hindsight it probably would have been best to keep going...but given the circumstances Bush had to deal with - after 911 and the threat of terrorism."
Bullshit. There were enough peace marches with enough people that there is no "hindsight" on this issue. Just like there is no "threat of terrorism" because there wasn't any evidence that Saddam was linked to al Queda.
In fact, al Queda has a completely different viewpoint than Saddam. Saddam is very secular.
"How did he know whether Saddam wouldn't be a threat to the US?"
Simple, Saddam didn't have any weapons that could reach the US. The US still had a military presence in Kuwait.
"Looking back is such a convenience...but you don't know these things until after it's already happened!"
Again, bullshit. Bush claimed to have "darn good" intelligence that Saddam had "WMD's" but he would NOT provide that to the UN inspectors to verify. Now it looks like Bush did not have ANY information. Just fantasies.
"I for one don't want to see anymore U.S. citizens killed."
Then stop reading the paper because US citizens are dieing in Iraq.
"I don't want to see anyone killed for that matter including Iraqi soldiers, but we at the time of *war* (in stars because we didn't official declare it constitutionally) must unfortunately kill some soldiers...that's what war is."
The US invaded another country, without any IMMEDIATE threat from that country. I don't care what you WANT to see. It happened and closing your eyes will not make it go away.
"I'm not just trying to defend Bush but moreso trying to get YOU to see that your arguments use the convenience of hindsight like I mentioned before."
And suppose I were to provide you with an example of me saying that there would not be any "WMD's" found PRIOR to our invasion?
What would that do to your "hindsight" arguement?
Think about it. Because I can prove it.
"Try being the President for one day and I think you'd have a whole new respect for the job. I for one would never want that job...too much pressure."
Cool. I'll take your challenge. Get Bush out and I'll take over for a day.
"For example, when I say something like "read between the lines," and then I follow that up with more information about what I mean."
S ol dierDeaths02-ON.html
. sh tml
No, "read between the lines" means that there is a meaning there in addition to the information confered by the statement.
"Yes, they are. Since LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process, you can interpolate it in your sentences to read: They should have used a competitive bidding process, not a competitive bidding process [i.e. LOGCAP]. That is why it is contradictory."
Okay, once again, really slowly for you. Because Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid that does NOT mean that they HAD to be given the contract for Iraq.
You have a problem with that fact and there is no amount of explaining that will get that through your head.
The government was NOT in any way required to award that contract to Halliburton.
Despite your claims to the contrary, they were not.
You even posted a previous instance where Clinton awarded a contract to Halliburton despite Halliburton losing the LOGCAP bid.
But then you claim that the winner of the LOGCAP bid has to get those contracts.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
"Bush never claimed a war zone would be safe, did he?"
He said he made the world safer. Yet now we have more attacks than before. You don't understand a thing.
"Do you think these attacks would have decreased if we let Saddam continue to control Iraq?"
How many attacks were there on US citizens in 1999? Now we have 10 - 20 a day.
Leaving Saddam in Iraq would have resulted in a few thousand fewer attacks, given historical data available from 1990 - 2000.
"I heard you say that, however you provided no details, no facts."
Damn, you read all those news sources and you need ME to provide you with references?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1202Iraq
http://charleston.net/stories/070703/ter_07iraq
How did you manage to miss things like that in your widespread readings?
1. Yes.
2. Yes, yes, yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
With your "read between the lines", you're trying to imply that the majority of Iraqis would rather have the US occupation.
Yet the facts don't seem to support that. Rather we have reports of groups of Iraqis celebrating that US troops are being killed.
"What is your solution to the mess of terrorism and Iraq, by the way? The war in the middle east is not perfect, but the goals are noble -- to make the world more free, to destroy terrorists, to help the people that need it the most."
No, we went in to control the oil.
That's why Bush had to lie about the yellow cake and nukes.
That's why Bush had to lie about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
That's why Bush had to imply that there was a connection between Saddam and al Queda.
That's why Bush had to lie about the "darn good" intelligence that he had from Iraqi exiles.
That's why our people are being killed over there, 6 months after the "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush is now blaming on sailors.
If the war is to make the world more free, then why aren't we spending more money and troops helping Afghanistan?
If the war is to destroy terrorists, then why aren't we spending more money and troops helping Afghanistan (we KNOW they had al Queda there)?
If the war is to help the people that need it the most, then why aren't we spending more money and time in Afghanistan where warloards control everything except Kabul?
Why didn't we move into Africa when they were STILL KILLING PEOPLE?
Those are the facts. I'm not surprise that someone like you can claim to read so much, yet miss so much reporting.
"I suppose you would have said to leave Hitler in power back in WWII if you don't think we should have taken Saddam out."
Suppose all you want.
Hitler was invading other countries. Saddam wasn't.
Saddam had already been kicked out of Kuwait.
Saddam was not a threat to the US nor could the US afford the expense of nation-building when we already had Afghanistan to fix.
"So I'm saying is don't put on Bush or the Republicans what Bill Clinton should have done a long time ago."
But Clinton did NOT do it. You keep missing that point.
Why are you trying to blame Clinton for something he did not do?
Is it just because you don't have any other support for Bush?
Too bad.
"Just from the fack that Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own people was justification enough to remove him from power."
Had murdered. We didn't prevent any NEW killings.
Meanwhile, we were ignoring certain events in Africa where the killings were HAPPENING AT THAT VERY MOMENT.
So, you think it is better to let someone kill hundreds of thousands of people just so we can "get" someone who kill a lot of people YEARS EARLIER?
That's some seriously messed up priorities you got there.
I'd say, keep the sanctions on Iraq and give the UN inspectors the time and info they need while we go and help people who we still have a chance of saving.
It would have cost us less AND we'd have a better chance of establishing another democracy.
Instead, we'll see a theocracy in Iraq.
"I am not going to go point by point because I don't have the time or desire to argue with someone who can't read between the lines."
Then why don't you save yourself some time and just EXPLAIN it instead of coming out with crap like "read between the lines"?
"Those two statements are contradictory."
No they are not. As you yourself say later.
"Correct, it was for anything the military needs contractors to take care of, in different fields. Rebuilding IRAQ just happens to fall into that."
But the contract does not HAVE to go to Halliburton. It COULD have been put up for a COMPETITIVE bid that included mid-eastern companies.
And that is what SHOULD have happened.
"Who is "they"? "
The people shooting at our troops. Don't you watch CNN?
"But many are foreign terrorists taking advantage of this opportunity."
Yet Bush claims he made the world safer.
more attacks == safer?
Only to people like you.
"The terrorists over there are but a tiny fraction of the population of Iraq."
2% is a "tiny fraction". Yet that would still result in 100,000 "terrorists".
Did you miss the items where a "terrorist" shoots a US troop and then hides in a crowd?
That sounds like popular support to me.
"These are insurgents controlled by terrorist groups and possibly even Saddam Hussein in hiding. They are not representative of the Iraqi population."
Look up the phrase "Sunni Triangle". There is a LARGE portion of the population that would support Saddam or some other Baathist.
There is also a LARGE portion that would vote for Iran-style theocracy if given the choice.
Neither of which would be particularly US-friendly.
Which is why we're STILL seeing between 10 - 20 attacks EACH DAY.
Did you miss the item where two people were shot and then the crowd danced on their car, looted the bodies and smashed their skulls with bricks?
And these are the people that will be selling the US oil because they are happy that we liberated them from Saddam?
You have some serious blinders on.
"In reality, the backbone story was already done. All the writers had to do was take an obscure, yet interesting, story and flesh it out a bit and transfer it to the stars."
You are a GENIUS!
Not to mention that we have about 2,000 years worth of literature.
Instead, we get sequels and crap.
Just not Battlestar.
So the only reason they're naming it Battlestar is so they don't have to work as hard to get viewers?
Change the names and release it as a different series.
Space Above and Beyond had a battle against human-looking robots. I think they did that VERY well.
This should have been done without the Battlestar background.
You say it lacks logic. Where?
You say people didn't complain about Halliburton back with Clinton.
So, Bush would still be wrong for giving Halliburton that contract.
"There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it!"
No, there wasn't. Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid process.
The LOGCAP bid process was NOT for re-building of Iraq.
All that means is that Bush had the OPTION of assigning the contract for Iraq to Halliburton without going through a bidding process.
"Why is this "more sensible?" It would seem more sensible for America to pay an American company that has won the LOGCAP, which is what happened."
And that kind of "logic" is why we have Bush blaming the sailors for that "Mission Accomplished" banner.
No, it would be more sensible to hire a mid-east company. A company with ties to other companies and people over there so that we can point out how THEY are the ones in control of THEIR future now.
"Man, he failed miserably then since the oil fields there still belong to Iraq."
Now you're starting to get the picture. He failed in finding "WMD's", he failed in catching Saddam, he failed in stopping terrorist attacks, he failed in just about everything.
Now he's talking about cutting his losses right before the election and letting Iraq vote in democracy.
Instead, we'll see another Iranian-style theocracy.
"However, once the U.S (Halliburton) fixes the oil pipelines so that the oil can be sold, the money will actually go to help the people of Iraq instead of into Saddam Hussein's coffers."
The US doesn't care who gets the money, as long as it isn't the enemy of the week. The Taliban were being catered to in Texas while Bush was in charge there.
The way this is going, the oil money will be going to the clerics.
"Do you honestly think the Iraqi's that currently are waiting for us to finish up and leave, are actually going to allow the U.S. to "control" the oil fields of Iraq?"
Do you mean the ones that are shooting at our troops over there?
The ORIGINAL plan was to have the US's puppets be elected by a grateful populace.
That failed. Those same puppets are the ones that gave the US the bogus info on the "WMD's" that Saddam had.
"Iraq will sell us oil at a reasonable price because we liberated them from a cruel dictator and rebuilt the parts of the oil field that were destroyed by Saddam's army and the guerrillas."
They're still shooting at our troops. That doesn't look like gratitude to me.
They dance around the wrecks after their guerrillas bomb our convoys. That doesn't look like gratitude to me.
An Iraqi man can shoot a US troop in the head and then run into a crowd that will cover his trail. That doesn't sound like gratitude to me.
You have the same blindness that Bush and company did.
The Iraqis do NOT like us. They still blame US for those sanctions all those years.
They blame US for the civilians killed during our invasion.
If we had a popular vote, you'd see a theocracy like Iran has.
Check out what the mid-east media says.
We pulled troops out of Afghanistan and we aren't spending enough to setup a stable democracy.
So the Afghan farmers are planting drugs.
The local warlords get a nice cut of these profits and a chunk goes to various terrorist organizations.
These terrorists use that money to buy weapons and such for people in Iraq who want to kill US troops.
What goes around comes around.
In 2001, the terrorists managed one BIG attack on US citizens.
In 2003, the terrorists have managed THOUSANDS of small attacks on US troops. Sometimes they kill, many times they just cripple.
The world is LESS SAFE today than it was on 11 Sept 2001.
The US has MORE DEBT today than on 11 Sept 2001.
This just sucks all over the place.
Halliburton is in the energy business. They do things like build oil rigs and such.
You do realize that you're quoting someone who wastes 4 paragraphs telling you how dumb people he doesn't like are, don't you?
"Did Bush or Cheney do something underhanded or illegal in handing some rather lucrative contracts to Halliburton for infrastructure and other work in Iraq?"
Yes. They did.
"We'll start with another question you can ask your bedwetting leftist friends."
He's continuing to insult people he doesn't even know.
"In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions."
So?
Is the point here that Bill Clinton is Jesus or something?
You are aware that Bill Clinton lied about sex with Monica, aren't you?
But if he says Halliburton is okay, then they're OKAY.
"You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton."
So he thinks that Gore is Jesus, also?
"This means that at the time of the Iraq War Halliburton had the bid for providing logistical and other services to the U.S. government."
Yes, that is correct.
But that does not mean what you think it does.
There is nothing ruling out a competitive bid process. And it would seem to be more sensible to have a company in that region doing the work.
"To the left this is all the proof you needed to show that this whole war was about oil and enriching Bush pals."
No, the war was about the nukes that Saddam was building with that yellow cake from Niger.
Oops. Sorry, that was shown to be faked, and our government knew it was faked when Bush said it.
The war was really about those huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam had.
Oops. It seems that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he didn't have any. It also looks like the UN inspectors were not idiots the way the Right kept saying they were.
What we REALLY went to war with Iraq for was to STOP TERRORISM.
Except that now Bush admits that there weren't any links between Iraq and anti-US terrorism. And now we're seeing a whole lot of terrorist attacks on US troops and Iraqis that support the US. So terrorism has INCREASED. That's quite the achievement.
No, the REALLY REAL reason we went to war was to liberate the Iraqi people.
Except we're now talking about cutting our losses and leaving before they have established a democratic government. Not to mention that any DEMOCRATIC vote will probably result in a RELIGIOUS leader and a move toward Iranian-style theocracy.
Some people will never admit that the US was trying to control the Iraqi oil fields. No matter how many lies are revealed.
"Then ask them if Bush went to Iraq to enrich Halliburton."
No. Bush declared war to gain control of the oil fields.
Halliburton was the company chosen to provide the means of exploiting that oil.
Getting money for Halliburton was just a nice way for Bush to show his appreciation for his friends.
C'mon, be honest, you hate Bush because all the other "cool" liberals do.
Why can't we cut education?
Because we don't have enough money to pay teachers as it is.
Yes, the Social Security taxes are not saved for future generations. But that doesn't mean we should cut benefits.
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion on whether Oregon is spending their education money incorrectly. A big budget with big expenses is NOT an indication to money is not being spent wisely.
You might THINK that we don't need those manufacturing jobs. But if we don't PRODUCE something, we don't have anything to SELL.
We cannot survive by selling insurance to each other.
The deficit is over $500 Billion AND CLIMBING.
That is just THIS YEAR.
That means that we will have ANOTHER $1 TRILLION added to our national debt by the end of next year.
This is a BIG problem. It means that MORE MONEY will have to be paid in INTEREST on that debt.
There is a difference between losing money in the stock market and having those funds looted.
Why don't you check into Bush's recommendations for the SEC?
C'mon, be honest, you like Bush because you don't understand basic economics.
We have UN inspectors saying that they cannot find any weapons.
We have have Iraqi exiles who would personally benefit from a US invasion.
Which group does Bush listen to and which group does he bash?
The US inspectors want to spend over $1 Billion looking for weapons that our "intelligence" claimed to have exact knowledge of.
What does this have to do with Clinton? Clinton didn't invade. Bush did.
And Bush sold his invasion on the LIE that he had "damn good" intelligence that Saddam had nukes or chemical/biological weapons.
Bush made a CHOICE to take biased sources over un-biased UN inspectors.
Those sanctions are what prevented Saddam from building up his military again.
Which is why Bush jr. had such an easy time conquering Iraq.
Clinton didn't do a great job, and I believe he did launch those attacks to distract the press and public.
But he STILL did a better job than Bush.
How about if Bush announces a balanced budget, and sticks to it, that doesn't cut social security or education but does include enough funding for NASA to get to the moon?
People don't hate Bush because he's Bush.
People hate his "if you ain't with me, you're against me" policies.
The situation is a LOT more complicated than you believe.
We have states (OR) that do not have enough money to pay teachers.
We've lost millions of manufacturing jobs.
We have a HUGE deficit.
We're sending over $100 Billion to Iraq.
We're still sending money to Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, we still have things like the financial mess that is taking BILLIONS of dollars out of people's retirement funds.
Yeah, this is just because his name is Bush.
Just so you know.
The PERCENTAGE of people living at or below poverty (without re-defining the poverty level).
Whether this number is increasing or decreasing each year is what matters.
You're right about it not having any legs.
We've lost millions of jobs already.
Having a one quarter spike is NOT going to off-set the losses we've already seen.
We're $500 Billion short on the budget.
I'm waiting for someone to do a chart showing the past 20 years. That way people will see what this "big" recovery is.
You can argue interpretation, but what I've seen of her work has been factually accurate.
Do we have the money to fund this?
We need to do it but I don't know if we can afford it.
KDE or Gnome. I agree. Sort of.
Don't have both in one package.
But how about having UserLinux-KDE and UserLinux-Gnome? Just not together.
The core Linux would be the same, of course.
But one distribution would be focused on Gnome and the other on KDE.
We don't even need both versions to start. Just think about the naming scheme so that the other can be added later (if anyone wants to).
Something else, look at Knoppix. Make UserLinux a live CD so people can test out their system BEFORE going through the install.
That way, if something goes horribly, horribly wrong, YOU CAN STILL GET TO THE INTERNET TO LOOK UP THE ANSWER. Or you can put off the install until you can get a compatible NIC or video card or whatever.
No surprises!