Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by SKkin

we went from having quite a few military contractors who battled each other in the typical American competitive spirit for contracts with the Pentagon down to about six really big ones.

I think there have only ever been between 5-10 really large prime contractors, certainly in Australia (the same players as in the US).

Originally Posted by SKkin

Lockheed Martin'll be the prime, and Boeing and Raytheon and General Dynamics will be the subs, and so forth.

Yes, this is a common arrangement. A prime contractor will often engage one or more other subcontractors to build systems with which they may have more expertise or experience. It is not 'collusion'. If they were colluding to keep their prices high and uncompetitive that would be another thing but they are not doing this.

Originally Posted by SKkin

and it has become more motivated by profits

Become? It is a business. It has always been motivated by profits. But it is an unusually highly regulated business, certainly when it comes to interaction with the DoD and US (and Aus) governments and any attempts at 'collusion' between themselves.

Originally Posted by SKkin

What it is is that they're out looking for profits, and the more profits, the better. And so if you find a line of conversation--for example, Iran presents a decided threat to the Gulf Cooperation Council--then you can push that line and you can sell more armaments.

Yes they sell arms overseas (in a highly regulated process). They do not try to incite conflict in the process. If they were found to be doing so they would not be allowed to engage with the big money spinner back home: The US government (or any other western governments).

Originally Posted by TuskegeeBen

Originally Posted by Gilbert

Originally Posted by Looper

You can speculate all you like about the underlying political forces that drove the coup. It was an internal political matter.

US mouthpiece video'd saying that the US "invested $5B" in destabilising Ukraine. Hardly internal when it was promoted externally ... by the usual suspects...

Shhsh! Least you be labeled a "subversive", by those same usual suspects! Capisce?

Nice to see a new poster actually taking the time to read a 3000 post thread from the start!

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Ah, the "real news".

And Wilkerson did such a cracking job convincing Powell to talk about Saddam's WMDs, which he's been trying to weasel out of ever since.

Give me fucking strength. So now he's trying to blame the arms manufacturers?

How very disingenuous harry

Originally Posted by Looper

the esteemed 'therealnews'

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Ah, the "real news".

No it's not an ad revenue driven or government subsidized Corporate Alphabet News agency. Which is why I like the Canadian Paul Jay and his site, The Real News Network.

Originally Posted by Looper

Become? It is a business. It has always been motivated by profits. But it is an unusually highly regulated business, certainly when it comes to interaction with the DoD and US (and Aus) governments and any attempts at 'collusion' between themselves.

Yes it is a business...a business that is subsidized by the taxpayers who don't share in the profits. That's my real problem with the whole system...and that doesn't just apply to the 'defense' industry.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And Wilkerson did such a cracking job convincing Powell to talk about Saddam's WMDs, which he's been trying to weasel out of ever since.

We all have our demons...

harry's got looper on his side... priceless

what a pair of fucking whackjobs

Originally Posted by Looper

keep their prices high and uncompetitive

Speaking of which, what do you make of this story from yesterday?

From a source I assume you'll find acceptable...

At the Pentagon, overpriced fuel sparks allegations — and denials — of a slush fund
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.031c3100f2e5

The Pentagon has generated almost $6 billion over the past seven years by charging the armed forces excessive prices for fuel and has used the money — called the “bishop’s fund” by some critics — to bolster mismanaged or underfunded military programs, documents show.

Since 2015, the Defense Department has tapped surpluses from its fuel accounts for $80 million to train Syrian rebels, $450 million to shore up a prescription-drug program riddled with fraud and $1.4 billion to cover unanticipated expenses from the war in Afghanistan, according to military accounting records.

The Pentagon has amassed the extra cash by billing the armed forces for fuel at rates often much higher — sometimes $1 per gallon or more — than what commercial airlines paid for jet fuel on the open market.

continued at link...

Pentagon overcharges government - Film at 11.

FFS you dim c u n t are you too young to remember when they were claiming a fucking spanner cost them $500?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

are you too young to remember when they were claiming a fucking spanner cost them $500?

Are you to old to know that it's still ongoing?

The Unredacted Truth About Spare Parts Overcharges(2015)

More than 30 years after the $7,600 coffee pot and the $436 hammer, weapon spare parts overcharges remain the clearest example of how the Department of Defense (DoD) wastes billions in taxpayer dollars. Numerous audits by the DoD Inspector General (IG) have unearthed Boeing overcharging up to 177,000 percent for spare parts, Sikorsky charging $2,393 for a $181 Black Hawk part, Hamilton Sundstrand increasing part prices by as much as 900 percent, and other examples of outrageous overcharges. But understanding the scope of the problem becomes harder when the Pentagon’s independent watchdog redacts the true scale of the overcharges, and preventing it is impossible as long as the DoD is forced to use an ill-defined definition of commercial items.

Pentagon waste machine is still well-fueled | TheHill(2015)


Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste(2016)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.6c1ca0bcaeed

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And Wilkerson did such a cracking job convincing Powell to talk about Saddam's WMDs, which he's been trying to weasel out of ever since.

By the way...I think that the presented 'evidence' of Iraqi WMD in the U.N. was forced on them from above. Powell was a yes man who did what he was told(all the way back to My Lai). Wilkerson needs to come clean on that as well. I doubt it was Wilkerson who "convinced" Powell to give that testimony.



CNN.com - Former aide:Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life' - Aug 19, 2005 (2005)

(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Originally Posted by SKkin

Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
And Wilkerson did such a cracking job convincing Powell to talk about Saddam's WMDs, which he's been trying to weasel out of ever since.

By the way...I think that the presented 'evidence' of Iraqi WMD in the U.N. was forced on them from above. Powell was a yes man who did what he was told(all the way back to My Lai). Wilkerson needs to come clean on that as well. I doubt it was Wilkerson who "convinced" Powell to give that testimony.



CNN.com - Former aide:Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life' - Aug 19, 2005 (2005)

Quote:
(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

At least the man has the cognitive hindsight ability, at last, to feel ashamed of himself.

^^If harry links you with the clear thinkers/rebels here, he is running scared. Keep it up.

I wonder how you nutjobs sleep at night, or do you?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I wonder how you nutjobs sleep at night, or do you?

now the real question is how you sleep at nights when you are obviously so delusional with the truth

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I wonder how you nutjobs sleep at night, or do you?

now the real question is how you sleep at nights when you are obviously so delusional with the truth

Oh and here's Buttplug with some more drivel.

Fuck off you fat queer troll.

Originally Posted by SKkin

CNN.com - Former aide:Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life' - Aug 19, 2005 (2005)

Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO)
7 Apr, 2017
Llorenti held up a photograph of Powell taken on that day, when he held up a model vial of anthrax to demonstrate the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein and his alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

“I believe that we must absolutely remember these pictures and that we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was the motivation for an invasion,” he said. “After this invasion, there was 1 million deaths, and it launched a series of atrocities in that region.”

Bolivia delivered an epic blow to the US at the emergency UN Security Council meeting Friday, reminding everyone of the disastrous weapons of mass destruction lie peddled by the US as a pretext to invade Iraq.

Speaking at the emergency meeting to discuss the United States’ missile strikes against Syria on Thursday, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti, criticized the Trump’s decision to take unilateral action against Syria, which he described as being “an extremely serious violation of international law.”

Llorenti reminded the council of what transpired on Wednesday February 5, 2003, when then-US secretary of state Colin Powell “came to this room to present to us, according to his own words, convincing proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-boli...-syria-us-wmd/

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I wonder how you nutjobs sleep at night, or do you?

A contented body and a relaxed mind enables the drop off easily. Maybe some stress should be taken out of your daily desert drudge.

Not only dangerous but callous (like the Graham):

Putin Exiles Lavrov to Siberia for Not Divulging Super Sensitive US Secrets Given by Trump

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I wonder how you nutjobs sleep at night, or do you?

A contented body and a relaxed mind enables the drop off easily. Maybe some stress should be taken out of your daily desert drudge.

Hahaha with all the paranoia you regularly exhibit in your posts you think you have a "contented body and a relaxed mind"?

I know I have.

It allows one to sift the the wheat from the straw. Telling the truth actually is less stressful than lying. You might want to try it for a week or so.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I know I have.

It allows one to sift the the wheat from the straw. Telling the truth actually is less stressful than lying. You might want to try it for a week or so.

I do nothing but.

However, I think you sift the wheat for the barnacles given the utter fucking poop you try and trot out as "truth".

Poor Vlad, made to look like a muppet twice in a week.

I expect he's had a few more people executed for it.

In Russia, there is a popular saying that goes like this: "Responsibility is punishable". In other words, if you stick your neck out, you risk getting your head chopped off - so it is better not take the initiative.

I have been thinking about that phrase after two recent screw-ups tarnished carefully cultivated media spectacles designed to portray the Russian state in the best possible light.

The first eye-raising incident surfaced on President Vladimir Putin's annual "direct line" television show - a highly choreographed question and answer session where specially selected Russians get the chance to quiz the head of state.

This year's edition came with an added feature: viewers were invited to "direct-text" the president with their messages appearing live on the screen - and some responded with brazenly defiant statements like: "Putin, you really think that people believe this circus with its planted questions?", "All of Russia thinks that you've been too long on your 'throne'", and "Three presidential terms is enough!"

It seems highly unlikely that the programme's producers would have pre-approved such rebellious content and, revealingly, the off-message texts disappeared for an hour or two. I began to wonder what would happen to the person who had come up with the "live-text" idea.

A few days later, the Kremlin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov waved the "rouge-texts" incident away. Many of the questions were of an "emotional nature", he said, adding that the viewers "were not expecting us to answer them".

The second public relations debacle centred on the footage Mr Putin showed filmmaker Oliver Stone during his much-derided documentary on the Russian leader.

"This is how our air force operates," said Mr Putin as he played some grainy video on his iPhone.

"These militants are running with arms; not just machine guns, but they have some serious weaponry at their disposal, which they used to destroy army vehicles."

Mr Stone nods his head obligingly - but the footage was fake. The Russian president was actually showing pictures of US troops shooting at Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in 2013.

For added realism, someone had added some audio of Ukrainian pilots operating over Donbass. The discovery was made by sharp-eyed researchers at a Russian non-profit Conflict Intelligence Team.

Once again, I wondered how it could have happened. Was a junior officer in the Ministry of Defence ordered to doctor up a video - or did he simply think he would get away it? What was clear, however, was that nobody in a position of responsibility was going to take responsibility.

Instead, we heard from Mr Peskov, who deployed the standard Russian defence - denial. "This is not true," he said. "Nonsense". And that was it.

In both of these cases, reality got in the way of a couple of carefully-constructed events - and the reality of things in Russia is hardly ideal. The economy is stagnant, the standard of living is dropping and an over-sized military eats up badly-needed funds.

But you will not see any of that on state television. Instead Mr Putin & co prioritise the appearance of things - the appearance of strength and stability for example. That way, you do not have to take responsibility for what is really going on.

Sky Views: Reality ruins Putin's image of stability

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

said Mr Putin as he played some grainy video on his iPhone.

gayer than a blue on a bender

vlad is a tard

Originally Posted by ENT

Unless intercept missiles were up to it