Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Jul 26, 2004, at 2:43 PM, nadim wrote:

> On Monday 26 July 2004 10:58 pm, Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:
> >    As always in US politics, its not that easy a question to answer 
> > and
> > you've gotten
> > things a bit scrambled.
> How lucky we are to have YOU!

 You can be sarcastic all you want, but you can't seem to keep Cheney 
and
Rumseld straight. Don't know why you're offended, I can't keep 
politicians
in other countries straight either. Lighten up.

> >   I think Bob was purposely baiting you, because its easy to get you 
> > to
> > spout
> > all the standard anti-Bush rhetoric, but you don't actually know 
> > enough
> > about what
> > you're talking about to back it up.
> Cut the crap, This is the second time you bash with "anti-Bush". You 
> know well
> that I am not only questionning the last 3 years of American foreign
> politics. In any case, does the standard "anti-bush" rehtoric mean it's
> empty.

  Questioning the last 3 years of American foreign policy is one thing,
repeating anti-Bush sentiments you've heard elsewhere is another.

  While the first thing might be interesting, the last thing is just 
annoying,
because not only do you get it scrambled, you tend to repeat the most 
outlandish, least substantial allegations. Other people I talk to about
politics do the same thing, I find it just as annoying with them.

 While I get professorial and lecture, Bob just challenges you to back 
it
up. My style is probably more annoying then Bob to you.


> Drop the white collar for once. You explaination of economics was the
> most borring you wrote in this thread. Do I have to spell it out for 
> you?
> Make a drawing with all the american classes (by income range), color 
> in red
> those who paid the war money and in blue those who have got some of 
> the money
> in their pockets. Since you are all wise and knwoldgeful you might 
> tell us
> how the graph looks like.

 Ok, you've just restated my "whether the transfer was _inappropriate_ 
or not" statement with blue and red, but ok. Though you are bringing 
"class" into it,
which as an American, I find typically European of you...

  I can't remember the exact figure, but something like 80-90% of the
money handled by Halliburton is being paid to local contractors. So 
there
are a bunch of Arabs making money selling the US stuff. What's your 
point?

 Of the 85 million allocated to Afghanistan and the Iraq war, 65 
million of that was DOD spending, the majority of which was salaries to 
soldiers. That's
not much of a conspiracy. Of the remainder, most of that is going to the
Iraqi provisional government at this point.

 So as typical, you're so certain that there's all this evil going on 
that
you make unsubstantiated allegations that aren't true...


> In vietnam (if I am correct of course) you had 500
> 000 people but 100 000 only were combattants. What were the other 
> doing? I'll
> keep my thoughts for myself till you tell us what you think they were 
> doing
> there. (and no this has little to do with vietnam but more to do with 
> war
> economics).

 Typical logistics in a modern war is that "REFM", (rear-echelon 
motherfuckers) are about 90% of the force. That is, it takes 9 people 
to make sure that  1 guy is in the right place, well fed, with the 
right amount of ammo, spare parts, etc. That's the reality of modern 
warfare. Its true across all modern armies, its not unique to the US.

 So I don't quite see your point.

> Were is the answer to my question? You can't say you haven't seen any 
> question
> (well you can and you certainly will, it's your style.)

 You asked for a link about the small percentage of money disbursed by 
the CPA
and I answered in excruciating detail about how that money was
disbursed, and whether it mattered.

 From my point of view, you were half-right because the original 
articles were half right, and I tried to give you some more background, 
and point out that it didn't matter so much.

 Here's the part I answered:

>  2 weeks ago, I read about scandals  on how the "reconstruction" money
> was not spend (Pierce please back me up with some links of yours, I'm
> worthless at finding things on the net (it was on Gnews with links to 
> major
> american journals) and how one big company transporting oil TO irak had
> already put 1 B$ in it's pocket (without going through the bidding 
> process if
> I recall right). If I am not mistaken Rumsfeld had a job there not 
> long ago.

 Seems to me I covered the question in great detail. You keep accusing
me of not answering questions, but whenever I challenge you on what 
question
I didn't answer, you go quiet.

 Pierce