Prez Obama- Get Us The HELL Out Of Afghanistan!!

[Denny Crane]

Those companies would make $billions, war or not.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11068

It is certainly true that during a two year period Halliburton’s revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from 1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration.

In 1998, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DoD contracts more than doubled.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Those companies would make $billions, war or not.

so if they werent war profiteering, they would have been paid billions for....what exactly?

and i didnt even mention halliburton

 

[BrianFromWA]

really man, i mean arent you over there?

Not yet...on the path. I know more than the average bear about two of the companies on that list, and it's as Denny said.

And there's not a whole lot of bombing in the mountains.

really? the reason there hasnt been another 9/11 is because you are bombing the mountains of afghanistan?

that must also be the reason that there hasnt been another okc bombing

I don't think the two are related. One was a relative lone wolf wacko who wanted revenge against the US government for Waco and David Koresh. One was a systemic attack among many attacks planned and coordinated by a worldwide group using failed countries with no rule of law as a base for training and carrying out attacks. Heard of many terrorists coming out of Yemen, Somalia, Sudan or Afghanistan recently?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Heard of many terrorists coming out of Yemen, Somalia, Sudan or Afghanistan recently?

pretty sure they are all coming out of saudi arabia still

and please, tell me how those merc corporations that you work with make money without war/occupation, im all ears

 

[Denny Crane]

so if they werent war profiteering, they would have been paid billions for....what exactly?

and i didnt even mention halliburton

So when there's not boots on the ground in some other nation, you think Lockheed Martin closes up shop and makes no money?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

So when there's not boots on the ground in some other nation, you think Lockheed Martin closes up shop and makes no money?

YOU said there was no profit to be had in afghanistan, just proving you wrong

 

[PtldPlatypus]

YOU said there was no profit to be had in afghanistan, just proving you wrong

To be fair, your quote was "We will stay there as long as it is profitable"--suggesting that the government is profiting, not private enterprises.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The US should only invade countries that the average citizen would want to visit. Canada, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and maybe a few small areas of Mexico.

 

[Denny Crane]

YOU said there was no profit to be had in afghanistan, just proving you wrong

I said the defense contractors you listed would make $billions, war or not. They did before the wars, as I pointed out. To add to that...

I don't see any profit to be had in Afghanistan. Never did. It was a war of REVENGE, and I'm not sure that revenge is ultimately a good cause.

If it was about throwing the taliban out of power, that was achieved quite early on. I have no idea why we stayed beyond that point.

Since 9/11/2001, the yearly defense budget has more than doubled. That's not including the supplemental spending bills to cover the wars. The military contractors were making 50% of the defense budget in sales in 2001, and less than 50% in 2010. They would have done so without the wars.

On the other hand, someone had to develop, test, iron out the bugs, and get Obama's drones ready to deploy.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-08-20-defense-stocks_n.htm

In 2001, revenue for U.S.-based defense contractors totaled $217 billion, according to analytics firm Capital IQ. By 2010 revenue had grown to $386 billion.

(See, they were making $billions before the wars, when Clinton was president, etc.)

 

[3RA1N1AC]

To be fair, your quote was "We will stay there as long as it is profitable"--suggesting that the government is profiting, not private enterprises.

umm, who do you think the government works for? the people?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I said the defense contractors you listed would make $billions, war or not. They did before the wars, as I pointed out. To add to that...

I don't see any profit to be had in Afghanistan. Never did. It was a war of REVENGE, and I'm not sure that revenge is ultimately a good cause.

If it was about throwing the taliban out of power, that was achieved quite early on. I have no idea why we stayed beyond that point.

Since 9/11/2001, the yearly defense budget has more than doubled. That's not including the supplemental spending bills to cover the wars. The military contractors were making 50% of the defense budget in sales in 2001, and less than 50% in 2010. They would have done so without the wars.

On the other hand, someone had to develop, test, iron out the bugs, and get Obama's drones ready to deploy.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-08-20-defense-stocks_n.htm

In 2001, revenue for U.S.-based defense contractors totaled $217 billion, according to analytics firm Capital IQ. By 2010 revenue had grown to $386 billion.

(See, they were making $billions before the wars, when Clinton was president, etc.)

you are proving my point, while still arguing against it

there were plenty of wars before 9/11 yes, and they made money supplying them, and they made money supplying our bloated military

but they make even more money now, looks like from your figures just the defense contractors are making $170billion more a year. thats not even taking into account the other companies on the list, tasked with building billion dollar freeways or fixing bombed out schools, or mercenaries, etc

there were/are billions and billions of dollars of profits to be had in afghanistan, plain and simple, the war machine marches on

 

[Denny Crane]

you are proving my point, while still arguing against it

there were plenty of wars before 9/11 yes, and they made money supplying them, and they made money supplying our bloated military

but they make even more money now, looks like from your figures just the defense contractors are making $170billion more a year. thats not even taking into account the other companies on the list, tasked with building billion dollar freeways or fixing bombed out schools, or mercenaries, etc

there were/are billions and billions of dollars of profits to be had in afghanistan, plain and simple, the war machine marches on

Your "point" keeps shifting as you're presented with facts.

What wars before 9/11 are you talking about now? What war were we in during 2001?

It seems to me that my point is well made. These contractors made $billions whether there was wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or not. They did not need the wars to profiteer because their revenues are a function of defense dollars spent, and defense spending more than doubled NOT COUNTING THE WARS.

You do realize that we have to pay our 1M soldiers whether they are stationed at fort hood or in Iraq, right? We have to pay to keep the jeeps and tanks and airplanes well maintained whether they're parked here or over there, right? The only cost difference is in getting the supplies from here to there, or from somewhere closer than here to there. That kind of cost doesn't prevent Walmart from importing and selling cheap goods, so why do you think there would be that much more expense (and thus profit) due to the wars?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

denny, you are higher than a $100 kite

it is beyond foolish to argue that they arent making money off the war in afghanistan, yet somehow you continue to do it, why? do you like arguing false positions? are you practicing for the "aids and cancer are pleasant to have" position at the next community college debate?

my point hasnt shifted at all... YOU foolishly said:

There's no profit to be had from Afghanistan.

i clearly outlined how you were wrong multiple times, and YOU shifted YOUR "point" over and over again to try and gain some traction

calling me out for shifting is like the pot calling the grass black

 

[Denny Crane]

You outlined nothing of the sort.

I have not shifted my point in the least. See post 31. You attributing me saying anything else is you making shit up. Get it?

And there is no profit to be had from afghanistan. It is an incremental expense compared to the DoD budget, and there's nothing of value we're getting back on that "investment" (expense).

 

[Denny Crane]

Here you go:

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2010/07/obama-signs-supplemental-war-funding-bill/32030/

Congress passed a $59B bill to pay for both wars. Included in that $59B was $33B to cover the entire cost of the military operations including Obama's surge strategy in Afghanistan. Also included was $5.1B for FEMA, $6.2B for foreign aid (to rebuild Haiti), and $13.4B for Vietnam vets exposed to agent orange.

So what profits are these companies getting from the actual war expenses? $33B pays for the soldiers' salaries, the cost to move them and their geer to Afghanistan, the fuel to run their vehicles, etc.

The companies you cited make their profits off the DoD budget, which is HUGE in comparison, and would be huge with or without the wars.

End of story.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

so you are saying those companies arent making a profit in afghanistan right? just to be clear...

seems to me that you are admitting you are wrong, while still arguing with me about it...it takes a special talent for you to lose both sides of an argument, so good show

if you really need to see what war profiteering is denny, why dont you google those companies, kinda hard to be hired as a mercenary in afghanistan, if there isnt a war there, kinda hard to rebuild afghanistan, if we hadnt blown it up in the first place, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc then you cherry pick lockheed because they make stuff for ALL wars, not just afghanistan, like thats supposed to be a positive for them or something

"there are no profits to be made in afghanistan" is false, i really dont see why you would want to keep us this ridiculous charade

 

[3RA1N1AC]

End of story.

riiiiight

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I have not shifted my point in the least. See post 31. You attributing me saying anything else is you making shit up. Get it?

sooo you didnt say this?

There's no profit to be had from Afghanistan.

maybe we are talking about two different things, are you talking about our government making a profit? because that would just be silly

 

[Denny Crane]

I see you're being obtuse, but is it on purpose?

Dept. of Defense spending is $300B, they make $127B.

Dept. of Defense spending increases to near $800B, they make $350B.

The war spending was supplemental spending bills, like that $59B.

Without the wars, they don't spend the $59B, no troops over there, etc. Defense spending is still $800B, they still make $350B.

Got it? The companies don't need us to be at war to make many $billions. In fact, it's probably not so much in their interests since it's not really safe to be over there where you get shot at.

Compare to the conspiracy theories about Iraq. The govt. takes over the govt. there and hands over the oil fields to the big oil companies and there's profit from selling the oil.

There's no oil fields in Afghanistan. Get it? All they have is heroin crops.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

you are arguing nonsense denny

tell me all about how merc companys make as much money without a war to go to

 

[Denny Crane]

you are arguing nonsense denny

tell me all about how merc companys make as much money without a war to go to

DynCorp is one of those mercenary companies. It's revenues for last year were ~$3.4B, with EBITDA of about $200M. However, they are not solely from mercenary type services, nor is the US govt. and servicing the two wars their only business (source of income).

So let me get your argument straight. The US govt. spends $6T over 10 years on defense, another $1T on the wars, so some mercenary company can profit $200M.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

no denny let me get this straight, you are saying all of the companies working over there are taking a loss, correct?

thats what i thought

 

[Denny Crane]

no denny let me get this straight, you are saying all of the companies working over there are taking a loss, correct?

thats what i thought

I think they make some money over there, but it's a small increment over what they'd make in peacetime. Like doing work for NASA (which they do), or working near military bases within the continental USA (which they do).

It is no reason to go fight in Afghanistan so they can profit by so little. I'm still looking for where you get your $billions in war profiteering from. It ain't there. It's a figment of your imagination.

That's what I thought.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

so you are finally admitting that this, the crux of the argument...

There's no profit to be had from Afghanistan.

is complete bullshit

kthnx

god, took you long enough, it was kinda pointless to argue so long against it imo, but some people just cant handle being wrong i guess

 

[Denny Crane]

Put up or shut up.

Exactly how much profit is to be had from Afghanistan? Show me some numbers from a reputable source. Otherwise you're you're talking out your ass.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

dude, YOU are the one with the silly position here, why dont YOU prove that "there are no profits to be had in afghanistan"

put up or shut up

good luck with that

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...gs-another-billion-dollar-afghan-police-deal/

 

[Denny Crane]

Already proven. You can't refute it.

I accept your surrender.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Already proven. You can't refute it.

I accept your surrender.

what the fuck are you talking about? you have proven that nobody made a profit in afghanistan? you must have deleted that post or something, not to mention i just posted a link to a billion dollar merc contract.

i accept your surrender, but then i bring you to guantanamo for torture and rape

 

[Denny Crane]

what the fuck are you talking about? you have proven that nobody made a profit in afghanistan? you must have deleted that post or something, not to mention i just posted a link to a billion dollar merc contract.

i accept your surrender, but then i bring you to guantanamo for torture and rape

Do the math.

$100B in, $1B out. No profit, just a HUGE loss.

There is no profit to be had there, period.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

so dyncorp had a 99 billion dollar loss in those 3 years? you are shifting again