Military/War discussion - Page 10

xxx · #91 09-20-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Well you have lumped hundreds of millions of people into one group...dangerous considering so much of that group disagree with the "elected" leadership. (aka 32% approval rating) Instead of saying US and Americans, perhaps Administration or President is more accurate why trying to depict the USA as believing it is "smarter" then the rest of the world. The whole topic is also a very double-edged sword. The majority of the countries that bash US policy would have ZERO problems and be advocates of the US is their policy favored them. IMO.

I might be wrong but I was under the impression that both the president and the administration were elected by the people of the united states of America. Therefore the people of the USA should take responsibility for their elected president and their elected administration.

As far as your point regarding the countries that bash the US, and I'm not saying I agree with them, they all seem to have a valid point.

What gives the US the right to tell others what to do? For a nation that values it freedom their actions seem ironic. In my opinion that should be something that the whole world decides not just the UK and US.

Sponsored Links

xxx · #92 09-20-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottie

The best millitary is this British we are the most feared.

I guess that why they were so eager to get involved in the Balkan wars.

Eric5273 · #93 09-20-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx

I might be wrong but I was under the impression that both the president and the administration were elected by the people of the united states of America.

Well, your impression could very well be wrong. Read this article. It's long but a very interesting read.

(And BTW, just reading the first few paragraphs will not be enough to convince you. But if you read the whole thing, you will be convinced)

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...lection_stolen

ylwjacket · #94 09-20-2006, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I suppose if you are running a private company and you are spending your own money, then you can do what you want. But government officials who are spending the pubic's tax money are supposed to have companies go through a bidding process.

I do business with many government agencies including the United States Army, and each year I have to submit a bid and they have to get at least 2 other competing bids. They are required to reward the contract to the company with the lowest bid.

But what has been happening the last 5 years is that the Pentagon has been handing out 75% of their contracts on a no-bid basis. As we have found out after the fact, most of these companies are getting the contracts because they know someone on the inside, and they are vastly overcharging the government for the services they are providing. In almost all of these cases, there are other companies that can do the same job for much less money.

The GAO has investigated this on numerous occasions, but the Justice Department has not prosecuted any of these companies. Instead, in a couple of cases that the media exposed and there was quite a bit of public outrage, they made settlements with both Haliburton & Bechtell to return some of the money they had stolen. But the Pentagon has continued to give no-bid contracts to both of these companies even after they admitted to vastly overcharging the government.

If the government was indeed being run like a business, these two companies would be dropped in a second. But instead, the government is being run like a welfare donor, and these companies are receiving vast amounts of corporate welfare at the taxpayer's expense.

OK, I'm trembling as I type this, but I agree with you Eric.

My business does lots of gov't contracting. There is nothing fair or efficient about what has been going on out of Washington.

Big donors are getting big contracts, there are no 2 ways about it. It is flat sickening. And, knowing a thing or two about this, there is no way that the firms in question are so uniquely qualified that no other firm could do the work (the only legal reason to no-bid a job).

XXX - we do not elect the Administration. The POTUS appoints his Administration. During an election, we have no idea who the cabinet members (the Administration honchos and policy makers) might be. In some states, some cabinet members are elected - not so at the Federal level. They are political appointees, pure and simple.

X5Jones · #95 09-21-2006, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteM

Tell me mate are you an ex-squaddie? (soldier)

Wow!, this thread exploded like a donkey on UXO!

To answer your question Pete, I wish I was an ex squaddie, but I've never been in the military myself!, but many of my elders have been!

Most of my Grandperants have been involved in the Millitary at some stage. My Grandfather(mothers side) was a lathe operator in Scotland making machinegun parts for WWII, and later served in the Merchant Navy, Grandfather(fathers side) was a First Class Machinegunner in the Australian Army during WWII and spent most of his time in the Phillipines, My Grandmother (fathers side) was enlisted in the Airforce as an Aircraft Mechanic untill the end of WWII.

They have taught me what I know today about the millitary and what we stand for as Soldiers, Patriots, and Free men and Women alike.

This "our army is better than yours" crap isn't neccacery!, all soldiers fight equally, and accidents will always happen. The US Army may have more acidental deaths than the British or Australian, but they have more men than us, so the rate of accidents per 1XXX~ number of Soldiers increases and becomes more prominent!.

How about we all just chill out, band together and focus on fighting the ENEMY not each other.

"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"

X5Flyboy · #96 09-21-2006, 07:38 AM

There are many good points discussed here - Let me say, I may not agree with all that's been said, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it - open discussion and equally divided opinions define a democracy

My only complaint is the "lie" label to the Iraq war - Before the war, intelligence from Russia, Germany, France, and Egypt all said Saddam had WMDs - history shows he had used them against Iran and the Iraqi Kurds - While the UN inspectors had said they could not find any in Iraq before the war, who honestly believed the UN could actually be right for the 1st time - After Clinton, our own intelligence services were decimated and we had to rely on other nations for information about Iraq - It's very easy to second guess decisions with 20-20 hindsight - But to say the war was based upon a deliberate lie, is the heigth of arrogance - it makes a nice sound bite - but is nothing but a lie itself - those that wish to believe it, only do so by ignoring all that was known before the war - history shows us how difficult it is to make decisions based on "intelligence", which contains both good and bad info - only looking back can you tell which was good and which was bad - But decisions have to be made - Carter showed us what happens when decisions aren't made - world events(and other leaders) lead us around by the nose - Mind you, I think Carter is a nice man, but he sucked as President - The media had nothing nice to say about Reagan,his actions and policies - likewise Bush - they both understand a bully only fears a clenched fist backed by the willinghess to use it - diplomacy only works if BOTH SIDES are willing to compromise - talking does not work against someone who only wishes to kill you

Read the news - These "Islamic radicals" have bluntly stated there can only be one religion and they will kill all others who don't believe as they do - Is this a "lie"? - There is a war out there and alot of the world refuses to see it - and personally, I'd rather fight it somewhere else than my backyard

On another note, history lesson - during the Renaissance, Swiss troops were the meanest mothers in the valley, plus the original "sorched earth" policy - it's that reputation that allowed Switzerland to be neutral through 2 world wars - The training to become a Papal Swiss Guard is one of the toughest in the world - there is not an elite soldier around the world that does not respect them

Elite troops are defined by their individuals, both leaders and soldiers - no nation has a monopoly - training, pride, and "seeing the elephant" (ie battle tested, reference to ancient times, standing your ground in face of this terrifying huge "weapon", Rome vs Carthage, Alexander vs Persia) help make armies, but it is the actions of individuals that raise units to elite or legendary - You have only to look at history to see how so many battles were won or lost by the actions of one or just a few

Wellington said after Waterloo (paraphrased) "It's a good thing war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it" - The last thing Bush or Blair want to to is send our sons and daugthers into harm's way, but we are fighting an enemy who glories in death to unbelievers and infidels (and their own) - until the Islamic religious leaders condemn the taking of innocent lives ( is that not against the teachings of Islam? ), terrorism will be the dominant threat throughout the world

To those that say Bush "created" more terrorists, I say you probably think turning on the light "creates" roaches.

If you are against how things are being done, what are your solutions? Running away, means we only delay the battle to a ground the enemy chooses. (NOT good) For all the complaining I hear, I don't hear any solution that is not already being attempted (other than running away)

WAKE UP! they want us dead and have repeatedly told us so. Another "lie"? I prefer Patton's order to "let the other poor dumb bastard die for his country", in this case , religion.

fln8tive · #97 09-21-2006, 08:14 AM

Mark: Well written, well argued, and very interesting commentary. I had never heard the phrase "seeing the elephant". This is the kind of debate worth following.

bozo · #98 09-21-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

.....they have to get at least 2 other competing bids. They are required to reward the contract to the company with the lowest bid.

Totally understand your frustration, but thats not the way its "supposed" to work...In fact, the lowest bids hardly ever get awarded, because no acquisition official will allow an award to a bidder thats not "responsIBLE", and equally "responSIVE"...In other words, I see hundreds of companies submit closed bids saying they can "DO THE JOB" with 10 people and 20 bucks a year when they know they're full of SH*T...But another "BIG DOG" company can come in and charge Uncle Sam twice as much, and as long as they address EVERY parameter of the SOW, or proposal request, (being responSIVE) they're in like flynn.....So next time, try putting a few more zeroes and a few more bodies in your bid(s)...It'll probably help a bunch...

Although, talking to friends of mine in K'stan, Af'stan, Iraq, Bosnia, Hungary and the rest, and laughing about how they love to fry hamburgers and mop dorm floors for 100+ grand a year, probably isnt a real confidence booster for guys like yourself...

Of course, you always have the small business advantage!

ylwjacket · #99 09-21-2006, 09:23 AM

It's not always low bid that has to win - it depends upon the type of commodity or service being offered. The particular gripe that I have is that many of these extraordinarily large contracts are sole-sourced, meaning no competition in the manner of delivery, nor the price. And, mostly, these sole-sourced contracts are friends of somebody high up.

That is just flat wrong. That sort of thing would land local politicians in the press, and in jail. I guess it's just the way things get done sometimes in Washington.

bozo · #**100** 09-21-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ylwjacket

It's not always low bid that has to win - it depends upon the type of commodity or service being offered. The particular gripe that I have is that many of these extraordinarily large contracts are sole-sourced, meaning no competition in the manner of delivery, nor the price. And, mostly, these sole-sourced contracts are friends of somebody high up.

Unfortunately, that IS the way it works...Of course, there will always be more and more lip service announcements to quell the complaints...Starting last week, any contract over $100M has to get command approval and justification for not broadening the RFP(request for proposal)..Which means, we actually "might" see a couple $50M or $80M jobs be shifted around the private sector...Dont get too happy though...KBR's got WAR the game in a chokehold....

Sponsored Links