# $15 Billion Unaccounted for in Iraq



## Toro (May 26, 2008)

> The inspector general for the Defense Department said yesterday that the Pentagon cannot account for almost $15 billion worth of goods and services ranging from trucks, bottled water and mattresses to rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns that were bought from contractors in the Iraq reconstruction effort.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203751.html

One blogger made this observation



> In fact, it appears as if virtually every procedure and law designed to prevent just this type of malfeasance was circumvented.
> 
> This spending was done in the midst of a national emergency and some of the usual safeguards couldn't be followed in the interest of national security and getting the job done quickly, right?
> 
> ...



http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/336/bush-administrations-teapot-dome


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

The all volunteer army has been a disaster. The corporate business like structure of the U.S. army is a disgrace and a cancer.

It has led to intense corruption,malignant stupidity and outright theft.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The all volunteer army has been a disaster. The corporate business like structure of the U.S. army is a disgrace and a cancer.
> 
> It has led to intense corruption,malignant stupidity and outright theft.



You are malignantly stupid beyond belief.  It's been pretty-well established that you don't know one damned thing about the US military.  Must you continue to prove it?  

Since at the department procurement level the Army is and always has been "volunteers" and political appointees, on what do you base your stupid accusation?  

The career force of the US military has always been volunteers; which, renders your baseless opinion as empty as your head.  

Get a freakin' clue, huh?


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2008)

Toro said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203751.html
> 
> One blogger made this observation
> 
> ...



There's been talk about money being handed out and disappearing without any accountability for quite a while. It's disgusting.



> The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
> The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee.
> 
> In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

That said, it's not the fault of the military. It's the fault of the leaders.

GS is simply pathetic.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> *You are** malignantly stupid *



When will that light click on inside your head and demand you stop seeking a reply from me? How many posts and threads has it been now, where quoting me as if I would ever reply.

Use that big brain and take a hint.

I will not, under any circumstances talk, engage in, or debate you expect to remind you, that you're a waste of time. 

I will never reply to you in any meaningful way. You have proven to be a hostile personality, valuing insults over substance and tirades over civility.

Again, stop seeking an answer from me.

You will never get it.


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> When will that light click on inside your head and demand you stop seeking a reply from me?
> 
> I will not, under any circumstances talk, engage in, or debate you expect to remind you, that you're a waste of time.
> 
> ...



I don't think he cares if you reply to him or not. He's just pointing out that you're ignorant beyond belief. It's merely observation.... an accurate one, but observation nonetheless.

No need for you to respond. We can all observe the same thing.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> I don't think he cares if you reply to him or not. He's just pointing out that you're ignorant beyond belief. It's merely observation.... an accurate one, but observation nonetheless.
> 
> No need for you to respond. We can all observe the same thing.



Are you going to sit there and agree to call me names? 

Or are you going to put your money where your mouth is and discuss the actual issue?

Tell me where your point of contention is, and I will respond to it appropriately.

Calling me names, making broad accusations or agreeing with someone else hurling insults does nothing - I repeat - nothing to enhance any legitimate criticism you might have of my posts.

Throwing insults expose a member of message board with no class, no values and a shrewd hostility towards substantive discourse. 

Either discuss the issue and bring serious arguments to the table; or go about your day thinking calling another poster names qualifies as serious discussion.

It's really up to you.


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Are you going to sit there and agree to call me names?
> 
> Or are you going to put your money where your mouth is and discuss the actual issue?
> 
> ...



How do you discuss "facts" with someone who draws conclusions like you do? You aren't talking about facts. You're spewing opinion... and it's pretty ugly in there... so what "facts" would you have others debate?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> How do you discuss "facts" with someone who draws conclusions like you do? You aren't talking about facts. You're spewing opinion... and it's pretty ugly in there... so what "facts" would you have others debate?



Again, are you going to discuss the issue?

Or will you waste everyone's time talking about me, as if I personally have anything to do with the claims I made.


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Again, are you going to discuss the issue?
> 
> Or will you waste everyone's time talking about me, as if I personally have anything to do with the claims I made.



You aren't responsible for your own trashtalk? Are you channeling someone else, perhaps?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> You aren't responsible for your own trashtalk? Are you channeling someone else, perhaps?



Again, are you going to discuss the issue, are you going to challenge the claims I made with seriousness?

They are there plain as day waiting for a response that isn't _'you're wrong because you're so ignorant!'_

Or are you going to continue to launch unrelated nonsense like "_You aren't responsible for your own trashtalk? Are you channeling someone else, perhaps_."

Discuss the claims with substance, or fuck off to another thread and let your laziness prevail.


----------



## cbi0090 (May 26, 2008)

OMG!  Can't account for it?  What does that mean?  They don't have a paper trail?  I have to laugh when I hear stuff like this.  Having worked for the Government and its accounting office I can tell you they operate under rules that are about as removed from reality as to be certifiably insane.  What that might mean is that the backup documents are not in proper format, or not verifiable, or not using the proper f--king font!  
It doesn't mean someone hasn't tried to justify it or attempted to provide the information that they need it just means they don't or won't recognize it and won't until it's all in order, which could take years.  
When I worked for the Feds overseas we got a per diem.  I could eat for $15/ day and stay at a hotel for $25/ day but my per diem was $190/ day??  Why, because you have to bribe the postal worker to get your mail, the maid and hotel manager to keep your stuff from getting stolen, the police at every little town you came to, the government workers, etc, etc, etc.  U.S. accounting rules do not recognize graft as a legitimate expense so our company got around it by giving us enough and calling it a per diem and the Fed project manager had the good sense to give it the nod because he was realistic.
Now, if I had been a federal employee like our soldiers I/ we wouldn't have had that option.  No, you have to have receipts for everything.  Remember our troops are taught to be soldiers not accountants.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

cbi0090 said:


> OMG!  Can't account for it?  What does that mean?  They don't have a paper trail?  I have to laugh when I hear stuff like this.  Having worked for the Government and its accounting office I can tell you they operate under rules that are about as removed from reality as to be certifiably insane.  What that might mean is that the backup documents are not in proper format, or not verifiable, or not using the proper f--king font!
> It doesn't mean someone hasn't tried to justify it or attempted to provide the information that they need it just means they don't or won't recognize it and won't until it's all in order, which could take years.
> When I worked for the Feds overseas we got a per diem.  I could eat for $15/ day and stay at a hotel for $25/ day but my per diem was $190/ day??  Why, because you have to bribe the postal worker to get your mail, the maid and hotel manager to keep your stuff from getting stolen, the police at every little town you came to, the government workers, etc, etc, etc.  U.S. accounting rules do not recognize graft as a legitimate expense so our company got around it by giving us enough and calling it a per diem and the Fed project manager had the good sense to give it the nod because he was realistic.
> Now, if I had been a federal employee like our soldiers I/ we wouldn't have had that option.  No, you have to have receipts for everything.  Remember our troops are taught to be soldiers not accountants.



Wow.

I wish you had bothered to read the article. Your post has nothing to do with the claims made in the article especially the part about _"Remember our troops are taught to be soldiers not accountants."_

Read the article.


----------



## Toro (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The all volunteer army has been a disaster. The corporate business like structure of the U.S. army is a disgrace and a cancer.



Could you explain what you mean by this.  Its a broad-sweeping statement.

I am queasy about firms like Blackwater - with its neoNazi like symbolism and all - but I'm not sure why a volunteer army is a disaster and a worse option than an enlisted army.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> When will that light click on inside your head and demand you stop seeking a reply from me? How many posts and threads has it been now, where quoting me as if I would ever reply.
> 
> Use that big brain and take a hint.
> 
> ...



Why do you assume I seek an answer from you?  You make a complete fool of yourself and I just like to help you out in that endeavor by highlighting it.

Contrary to your baseless accusation, you don't respond to me because you can't.  Not responding ... except for the countless times you have informed me you're not responding to me  ... only proves that fact.

Let's take your response to the original post for example.  Stupid.  Period.  A display of absolute ignorance on your part.  You've started two other threads making the same baseless claim and just got your ass whooped so bad by any and everybody that felt like it I'm surprised you haven't  donned a paper bag over your head, changed your ID and moved to another board.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Wow.
> 
> I wish you had bothered to read the article. Your post has nothing to do with the claims made in the article especially the part about _"Remember our troops are taught to be soldiers not accountants."_
> 
> Read the article.



Wow is right.  His response is directly to the point.  The problem here is that point seems to exceed your ability to grasp.

Not that your baseless, blind accusation in your original response in this thread has a damned thing to do with anything.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2008)

Toro said:


> Could you explain what you mean by this.  Its a broad-sweeping statement.
> 
> I am queasy about firms like Blackwater - with its neoNazi like symbolism and all - but I'm not sure why a volunteer army is a disaster and a worse option than an enlisted army.




There are two threads in the military subform that he started making the same baseless claim and tapdances around for several pages in each.  If you're interested, that is.


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2008)

Toro said:


> Could you explain what you mean by this.  Its a broad-sweeping statement.
> 
> I am queasy about firms like Blackwater - with its neoNazi like symbolism and all - but I'm not sure why a volunteer army is a disaster and a worse option than an enlisted army.



There should never be a Blackwater or anything like it in this country.

As for the volunteer army, it isn't the problem. They do their jobs just fine for the most part. The problem comes from a) the sorry task they were asked to undertake (and which they seem to have done to the best of their ability); and b) the over-rotation of troops.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

Toro said:


> Could you explain what you mean by this.  Its a broad-sweeping statement.
> 
> I am queasy about firms like Blackwater - with its neoNazi like symbolism and all - but I'm not sure why a volunteer army is a disaster and a worse option than an enlisted army.



Certainly, though you might have to wait until later tonight or tomorrow. Got some things to do.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> *Why do you assume I seek an answer from you? * You make a complete fool of yourself and I just like to help you out in that endeavor by highlighting it.
> 
> Contrary to your baseless accusation, you don't respond to me because you can't.  Not responding ... except for the countless times you have informed me you're not responding to me  ... only proves that fact.
> 
> Let's take your response to the original post for example.  Stupid.  Period.  A display of absolute ignorance on your part.  You've started two other threads making the same baseless claim and just got your ass whooped so bad by any and everybody that felt like it I'm surprised you haven't  donned a paper bag over your head, changed your ID and moved to another board.



Use that big brain and take a hint.

I will not, under any circumstances talk, engage in, or debate you expect to remind you, that you're a waste of time.


----------



## Annie (May 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> I don't think he cares if you reply to him or not. He's just pointing out that you're ignorant beyond belief. It's merely observation.... an accurate one, but observation nonetheless.
> 
> No need for you to respond. We can all observe the same thing.



Exactly, this poster is not worth responding to. What has happened in the short time he's been here, both those on the left and right have found him ignorant of events, his interpretations of events, and his comments on such. No one finds his posts a source of debate or illuminating, rather it's 'him' that is the issue.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 26, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Exactly, this poster is not worth responding to. What has happened in the short time he's been here, *both those on the left and right have found him ignorant of events*, his interpretations of events, and his comments on such. No one finds his posts a source of debate or illuminating, rather it's 'him' that is the issue.




You want to make a serious accusation?

Then prove it with specific examples of me being "ignorant" of events. The quote function is a remarkable tool. Use it to substantiate your bizarre claims. Or do not and remain the slouch you appear to be.

It takes a silly lazy person all of two seconds to make such a general accusation towards another poster like the one you have made above.

Not only is it clearly fallacious to accept the perceived "approval of the majority" as evidence for a claim but it is downright elementary and is indicative of a cheater.


----------



## Paulie (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> "Remember our troops are taught to be soldiers not accountants."



You do realize that military members attend a career-specific training school after Basic, right?

That would include accounting, should that be the MOS or AFSC you chose during enlistment.  If you chose finance, you learn finance in your tech school.  If you choose firefighter, you are trained to fight fires.  If you choose cook, you are trained to cook.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> There should never be a Blackwater or anything like it in this country.
> 
> As for the volunteer army, it isn't the problem. They do their jobs just fine for the most part. The problem comes from a) the sorry task they were asked to undertake (and which they seem to have done to the best of their ability); and b) the over-rotation of troops.




Blackwater is a private security firm.  They provide a service.  They also have a sorry task and accomplish it the best way they know how.

The troops are only over-rotated when compared to peacetime service.  Prior to Vietnam, troops served for the duration.  When compared to THAT, they've got it pretty easy.

A larger military force would help alleviate the PersTempo as well as redploying assets we have manning obsolete, Cold War bases.  

What would actually work best IMO is to phase in the Iraqi army and correspondingly phase ours out.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You want to make a serious accusation?
> 
> Then prove it with specific examples of me being "ignorant" of events. The quote function is a remarkable tool. Use it to substantiate your bizarre claims. Or do not and remain the slouch you appear to be.
> 
> ...





> The all volunteer army has been a disaster. The corporate business like structure of the U.S. army is a disgrace and a cancer.
> 
> It has led to intense corruption,malignant stupidity and outright theft.



Oh look ... THAT was sure hard. 

Flat talking out you ass and proving your ignorance right there.


----------



## Gunny (May 26, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Use that big brain and take a hint.
> 
> I will not, under any circumstances talk, engage in, or debate you expect to remind you, that you're a waste of time.



YOU take a hint junior.  I don't care whether or not you respond to me.  We've already established the fact you have nothing of value to say anyway.  

I DO get a kick out of you responding to me telling me you aren't going to respond to me.  How old are you?  8?

If anyone is a waste of time, I'm seriously considering looking to see how much bandwidth your drivel is wasting.


----------



## Nate Peele (May 26, 2008)

The war costs $720,000,000 per day.  $15,000,000,000 is chump change.  That's like barely 20 days of fighting.


----------



## Toro (May 26, 2008)

Nate Peele said:


> The war costs $720,000,000 per day.  $15,000,000,000 is chump change.  That's like barely 20 days of fighting.



Well, that's reassuring.

I'm gonna get in on the gravy train, then.  Ripping off the American taxpayers under the guise of fighting Islamofascists is a lucrative business.


----------



## jillian (May 27, 2008)

Nate Peele said:


> The war costs $720,000,000 per day.  $15,000,000,000 is chump change.  That's like barely 20 days of fighting.



Of course that makes it all okay as they line their pockets and people like you bemoan giving money to education, health, or any other socially beneficial program.


----------



## Gunny (May 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> Of course that makes it all okay as they line their pockets and people like you bemoan giving money to education, health, or any other socially beneficial program.



It isn't okay.  At the same time, it is understandable.  It's the age-old conflict of beancounters vs field troops.  Things get "relocated."  They aren't stolen in the sense of the word because troops are actually using the items for their intended purpose.

But when unit X needs so many widgets and their Table of Equipment (T/E) that is based on some bookworm's numbers from 30 years ago says they don't rate, Eggbert the boxkicker isn't going to procure for them, nor release to them said equipment.  Hence the term "relocated."  

It's a vicious cycle.  THose boxkickers and beancounters act like the equipment is their personal belongings and no way are they going to let us dumb grunts get ahold of and subsequently destroy it.

On their side of the coin, when  the chair-polishing IG comes around to Supply, they better account for each and every item, and will be failed on the inspection if the paperwork's so much as filled out incorrectly.

The intent of the inspection -- serviceability and accountability -- got lost in the bureaucracy or zero defect mentality long ago.

Then, as opposed to the blanket condemnations made by a certain uneducated twit, there ARE criminals in the military.  The military is a microcosm of our society, and the criminal element is represented as well as others.  

Equipment is also flat-out destroyed.  The ME is a hostile environment to machinery.  So is the stress of being used in tactical/combat situations.  So is just being plain-old blown up.  When something breaks down on a mission and it does not compromise the conduct of that mission, it gets left behind and maybe gets pucked back up.

This is by no means all-inclusive, nor meant to be definitive.  It just gives a general idea of some things can happen.  There's also civilian theft, the equipment could be sitting on a dock in Okinawa (not unheard of), or just about anything else that could possibly happen to it.  

While it may indicate a lack of perfection on the part of the US military, and a system that could be more efficient, it by no means supports any of the crap the aforementioned twit spews forth anytime someone posts "US military."


----------



## BrianH (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Are you going to sit there and agree to call me names?
> 
> Or are you going to put your money where your mouth is and discuss the actual issue?
> 
> ...




Hmmm.....   Let's see, If you compare an all-volunteer army (those that want to be there) with an all draft army (includes many more who don't want to be there) you'll find that the all-volunteer army functions more efficiently.  I'd like to see you try and order someone around who doesn't want to be ordered around.  No offense to the Vietnam vets, but this was a problem during the Vietnam drafts.  You had alot of AWOLS, and alot of conscripted soldiers that didn't give a crap about completing their mission.  I wouldn't be against a draft in the event of another large-scale World War in which numbers were needed, but the all-volunteer army has not been a disaster.  

Me thinks TGS is an ignorant KID who has fallacious ideas.... 
My legitimate criticism of your posts is that you have no evidence to back up your conclusions.  And the information you "think" backs up your conclusion really doesn't back it up.  You've posted this nonsense before, and backed it up with information about decisions NOT made by the military (which leads most to believe that it is not the military doing a bad job, but the politicians.)  I hate to say it again TGS, but it is blatantly obvious that you have no knowledge about how the military works and functions.  

Your insinuation of your own knowledge would make as much sense as me trying to tell you about the town in Canada that you live in.


----------



## BrianH (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You want to make a serious accusation?
> 
> Then prove it with specific examples of me being "ignorant" of events. The quote function is a remarkable tool. Use it to substantiate your bizarre claims. Or do not and remain the slouch you appear to be.
> 
> ...




PROOF OF TGS IGNORANCE LISTED BELOW:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=613886

"The all volunteer army has been a disaster. The corporate business like structure of the U.S. army is a disgrace and a cancer. It has led to intense corruption,malignant stupidity and outright theft. "

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=691960#post691960

"You should really research history as written by those who are most qualified to form authoratative conclusions."

"I have never, will never make or have made any misrepresentation."

"Certainly I will explain. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA (all volunteer army) has been a disaster for America. I don't say this to "bash" anyone. I am simply exercising my opinion based off of the personal research I have done into the issue."

"Yes, there has been "proof."

First, remember that there is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=53013&page=3

This is just a taste of TGS's ignorance.  Many are with a definate sense of irony.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 27, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Hmmm.....   Let's see, If you compare an all-volunteer army (those that want to be there) with an all draft army (includes many more who don't want to be there) you'll find that the *all-volunteer **army functions more efficiently*.  I'd like to see you try and order someone around who doesn't want to be ordered around.  No offense to the Vietnam vets, but this was a problem during the Vietnam drafts.




I don't know what most of the crap you posted has to do with the topic and I'll even ignore your pathetic attempts to "smear" me on the internet and therefore turn the thread into a pissing contest about "The GoodShepherd." 

No need to reply to the actions of a juvenile obsessed with an internet poster on a political message board. Not worth the time.

What I will do, what I always do is stick to the issue. I'll just bold the most relevant parts and fire away.

Your claim is that an all volunteer army "functions" more efficiently. Of course, the evidence concludes the opposite and the move towards privatization of the U.S. armed forces remains a dangerous path to tread. 

It is _far _more expensive to operate an all volunteer army than it would be to operate its opposite of equal size. Furthermore, there is also "less control." 

Outsourced private armies, by and large, operate under their own rules and charge taxpayers exorbitant prices for their services: far more than it would cost the U.S. government.


----------



## BrianH (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I don't know what most of the crap you posted has to do with the topic and I'll even ignore your pathetic attempts to "smear" an me on the internet.
> 
> No need to reply to the actions of a juvenile obsessed with an internet poster on a political message board. Not worth the time.
> 
> ...




I'll go ahead and bold your ridiculous remarks.  The mistake you make is in not coming to the realization is that OUTSOURCED PRIVATE ARMIES are *PRIVATE*, and not creations of or controlled by the U.S. military.  You're evidence isn't evidence at all, it's information that you've applied to a incorrect  conclusion.  How does outsourced PRIVATE armies have anything to do with the U.S military and it's functions.  I've got news for you, Blackwater and other private armies are not considered the U.S. military.  No more than a vigilante is considered a police officer.

As far as control.  You couldnt' be more assinine.  When it comes to control, compare the behavior of a group of high school students (forced to be in school)  with that of a group of college students (who want to be there).  See what the difference is.  If you dont' want to work where you work, you'll do a crappier job at it...it's basic psychology.  If you fill an army full of people who don't want to be there, they will perform ineffectively.....

As far as pathetic attempts to smear you on the internet.  I'd change your word choicing to successful attempts portray you for the ass-eater that you are.  You gave Kathianne a hard time about not posting proof of your ignorance, so I obliged your complaint by doing so....


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 27, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *How does outsourced PRIVATE armies have anything to do with the U.S military and it's functions*.



The "all volunteer" model relies on a steadily and increasingly "outsourcing" of jobs to private companies in an effort, proponents claim, to save Uncle Sam money. 

The GAO made far different conclusions in it's reports. The push towards privatization has largely failed. Corruption, theft and rogue behaviour permeates throughout the Armed forces representing America. The all volunteer model has fostered a poisonous atmosphere, in fact even encouraged it.

The outsourcing of traditional military jobs to private armies is very much a part of the "vision" of the all volunteer army: to charge US taxpayers outrageous prices while proclaiming this great scam is actually saving the US money.

I call B.S. when I see it. 

And the "all volunteer army" is a total scam.


----------



## BrianH (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The "all volunteer" model relies on steadily and increasingly "outsourcing" jobs to private companies in an effort to save Uncle Sam money.
> 
> The outsourcing of traditional military jobs to private armies is very much a part of the vision of the all volunteer army.



Says the guy who claimed in another thread that Private outsourced armies are being paid for by tax-payers??? How is this saving Uncle Sam money again.  keep talking in circles dude.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 27, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Says the guy who claimed in another thread that* Private outsourced armies are being paid for by tax-payers???*




Who do you think the "private" armies send the bill to Brian?

They send it to the U.S. government obviously Brian and my whole point is that "all volunteer" model does not save the US government money. Are you finally catching on? It turned out to resemble a disaster.

A little slow today, are we?

Did you have your coffee?


----------



## BrianH (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Who do you think the "private" armies send the bill to Brian?
> 
> They send it to the U.S. government obviously Brian and my whole point is that "all volunteer" model does not save the US government money. Are you finally catching on? It turned out to resemble a disaster.
> 
> ...



THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISIONS OF OR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE U.S. MILITARY (based on its own decisiosn or functioning)  ALL OF THE PROBLEMS YOU SUGGEST ARE NOT COMING FRMO THE MILITARY.  I may have not had coffee this morning, but it's obvious that you've definately had too much of something....


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> When will that light click on inside your head and demand you stop seeking a reply from me? How many posts and threads has it been now, where quoting me as if I would ever reply.
> 
> Use that big brain and take a hint.
> 
> ...



Er...this post is an answer, and shows you are willing to talk, engage in, or debate with him....and that you will reply to him.
And if you expect civility from people when you bash our military, you can expect to "not talk" to a lot of people.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 27, 2008)

BrianH said:


> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISIONS OF OR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE U.S. MILITARY (based on its own decisiosn or functioning)  ALL OF THE PROBLEMS YOU SUGGEST ARE NOT COMING FRMO THE MILITARY.  I may have not had coffee this morning, but it's obvious that you've definately had too much of something....



Yes it certainly does. If you do not think it does, state your case. Simple as that.

The push towards privatizations remains the idea of a band of bumbling civilian and military individuals who sold the idea of the "all volunteer" army to the government as way to shed a few layers of skin.

What it really was, was a giant rip-off.

Private armies are very much a part of the armed effort of the United States. No matter what you think, when most Iraqis see a convoy carrying the insignia of Blackwater corp, they do not differentiate. They are still American to the Iraqi eyes. They're here because Washington sent them here they conclude. 

These private armies are run and owned by high ranking civilian and military guys who saw the potential to make billions by fleecing US taxpayers. They had all the right friends, and all the right connections.

Like I said, private armies are very much a part of the "all volunteer" model whether you like it or not.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2008)

The onus is on you to state your own case, not on those who disagree with you to prove the negative.

State your case.


----------



## BrianH (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Yes it certainly does. If you do not think it does, state your case. Simple as that.
> 
> The push towards privatizations remains the idea of a band of bumbling civilian and military individuals who sold the idea of the "all volunteer" army to the government as way to shed a few layers of skin.
> 
> ...



I'll first say that since you have made this claim, it is your job to post your proof and prove your position. 

Second, I'll prove my case: THE U.S. Military does not dictate where it's funds come from, they do not make decisions on where they are to wage war, they have nothing to do with policy regarding private armies, in fact, the military hates private armies like blackwater.  Since when to we let Iraqi view of blackwater effect an interpretation of the military??  

you can dance around this all day long if you want.  The problem with your claim is that it, in no way, reflects the effectiveness or decision making abilities of the U.S. Military.  Your evidence reflects the inability of politicians and Congress to effectively fund and make policy for the U.S. military.  Do you think that the U.S. military invented the "Don't shoot first" mentality of the "rules of engagement"?  I highly doubt it and in fact would put money on the Geneva convention for that.  The distribution of funds and burden of tax-payers have nothing to do with personell in the military and whether or not they are doing a good job.  As far as the draft goes, it makes no sense to replace the all volunteer army with the same number of consrcripts.  All you are doing is swapping out personnel...they'll still need the same equipment and supplies....

You have no idea what your even talking about.  Your conlcusion does not represent the information or "evidence" that you claim you have.


----------



## cbi0090 (May 27, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Wow.
> 
> I wish you had bothered to read the article. Your post has nothing to do with the claims made in the article especially the part about _"Remember our troops are taught to be soldiers not accountants."_
> 
> Read the article.



Actually, I did and the point was that if there is anyone screwed up in this mess it's the Government Accounting Office.  It's like the kettle calling the pot black.  If you want to find something wrong that anyone is doing just start looking at their finances.  They'll be so messed up you can interpret or twist them any way you want.  That's why anytime I hear something about how some governmental agencies books aren't balancing I have to laugh.


----------



## Gunny (May 27, 2008)

cbi0090 said:


> Actually, I did and the point was that if there is anyone screwed up in this mess it's the Government Accounting Office.  It's like the kettle calling the pot black.  If you want to find something wrong that anyone is doing just start looking at their finances.  They'll be so messed up you can interpret or twist them any way you want.  That's why anytime I hear something about how some governmental agencies books aren't balancing I have to laugh.



This idjit just has a hard-on for the military.  I suspect he tried to join and was found wanting.  This is the third thread in which he has talked straight out his ass, been shot down by everyone that cared to barring guest appearances from other boards to lay some smack on him.  

You can put what he knows about the military in a shot glass and still have room for an ounce of alcohol.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 28, 2008)

cbi0090 said:


> Actually, I did and the point was that if there is anyone screwed up in this mess it's the Government Accounting Office.



And how do you think the GAO screwed up?


----------



## BrianH (May 28, 2008)

Yeah TGS, just do what you best....ignore the people that prove you wrong.  Since you're still in college, I'll give you some advice.  You gripe and complain about others not discussing things rationally, yet, you double the irrationality of this board.  Not only have you been proven wrong on numerous occasions, but you refuse to admit it.  When you are proven wrong,your first inclination is to start calling people liears, then you just start ignoring posts after they put you in your place.  If you really want to be as smart as you believe you are, start learning how to frickin interpret information correctly, and don't sit there and act like you're more intelligent than everyone else.  No one likes a "know-it-all", especially one that acts like a "know-it-all" but really doesn't know jack.  The problem you have is letting your biased emotion dictate what you find.  IMO, you're someone who already has his mind made up, but is looking for information that will lead to a desired result, while casting all other information aside.  You may think I'm some kind of internet personality (which is typically your only defense most of the time--and not to mention your right to have an opinion) but before you go around throwing blind accusations, ask yourself if there's any credentials you bring to the table?  Degrees?  Certifications? ???  
By the way, your rep is really low, which doesn't mean that people don't like you.  It means that they obviously know that you're full of crap 99% of the time.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 28, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Yeah TGS, just do what you best....ignore the people that prove you wrong.  Since you're still in college, I'll give you some advice.  You gripe and complain about others not discussing things rationally, yet, you double the irrationality of this board.  Not only have you been proven wrong on numerous occasions, but you refuse to admit it.  When you are proven wrong,your first inclination is to start calling people liears, then you just start ignoring posts after they put you in your place.  If you really want to be as smart as you believe you are, start learning how to frickin interpret information correctly, and don't sit there and act like you're more intelligent than everyone else.  No one likes a "know-it-all", especially one that acts like a "know-it-all" but really doesn't know jack.  The problem you have is letting your biased emotion dictate what you find.  IMO, you're someone who already has his mind made up, but is looking for information that will lead to a desired result, while casting all other information aside.  You may think I'm some kind of internet personality (which is typically your only defense most of the time--and not to mention your right to have an opinion) but before you go around throwing blind accusations, ask yourself if there's any credentials you bring to the table?  Degrees?  Certifications? ???
> By the way, your rep is really low, which doesn't mean that people don't like you.  It means that they obviously know that you're full of crap 99% of the time.



Try sticking to the issue instead of obsessing over me.


----------



## BrianH (May 28, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Try sticking to the issue instead of obsessing over me.



I've stuck to the issue several times, and you've chosen to ignore it.  You chastise everyone else in here about their intellectual abilities and you still fail to acknowledge your own intellectual faults.  Instead of posting a nice long message debating my position, you've chosen to type a 10-word statement that really shows your own ignorance.  

For the record, I'm not obsessed with you, I'm obsessed with making you look like an ass.  Of course it's not that hard.....

Oh and BTW, nice dodge again.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 28, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I've stuck to the issue several times, and* you've* chosen to ignore it.  *You* chastise everyone else in here about their intellectual abilities and *you* still fail to acknowledge *your* own intellectual faults.  Instead of posting a nice long message debating my position, *you've* chosen to type a 10-word statement that really shows *your* own ignorance.
> 
> For the record, I'm not obsessed with you, *I'm obsessed with making you look like an ass*.  Of course it's not that hard.....
> 
> Oh and BTW, nice dodge again.



My points remain astonishingly clear and so does the source. 

Find fault with the GAO conclusions or do not. Highlight their legitimate points or do not. Provide a report with equal or greater prestige then the general accounting office, or do not. Substantiate your claim that an all volunteer army "functions" more efficiently than its opposite or does not.

Typing how you "owned" me or about "loving to kick my ass, or make me look like an ass" reveals a side the keen observer can only characterize as bizarre.

No rational being would ever level akward proclamations of victory towards the person whom one engages in conversation.

It is coarse and it is queer.


----------



## BrianH (May 28, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> My points remain astonishingly clear and so does the source.
> 
> Find fault with the GAO conclusions or do not. Highlight their legitimate points or do not. Provide a report with equal or greater prestige then the general accounting office, or do not. Substantiate your claim that an all volunteer army "functions" more efficiently than its opposite or does not.
> 
> ...



You are the only one on this board who thinks your points are clear.  Everyone else would agree that your points are "astonishingly" coming from your ass.  

See, your problem is always assuming that someone else has the job of substantiating a specific claim that they've never made.  This is typical TGS bullshit.  You always make a very specific claim and act as if the evidence suggests your conclusion.  9 times out of 10, your conclusion does not represent the information and or any reports that you post.  When you make a claim, it is your job to prove it, end of story.  It is not others' job to prove your claim, but your own.  You can't even prove your case to numerous normal human-beings on this thread.  You pass yourself off as the all knowing and a college intellectual prodigy when you are only in fact a biased researching goon who thinks he's better than everyone else cause he's in Canada going to school.  

No rational human being would ever engage in a debate without having all of his facts straight either.  Do you think your rep points are low because everyone simply just doesn't like you??? Or do you think maybe it has something to do with all of the bull shit that spews from your tiny brain....?



As far as the actual topic goes....I've stated the fualts of your conclusion numerous times....
1.)  The military does not make financial decisions in regards to limitations of their budget.

2.) The military does not make decisions on where they are to wage wars.

3.) The military does not enact legislation or policy with regards to where their funding comes from.

4. The military does not enact legislation or policy with regards to privately operated armies such as Blackwater and other mercanries.

5.  The military has nothing to do with foreign policy or anything enacted there of.


Basic fact: The military is given a mission, (whatever that may be) and they complete the mission.  Any qualms you have with the reasons for war, the conduction of the war, the foreign policy regarding the war, does not rest at the feet of the military.  They are trained to do their job, when they are given orders from their commanders <---who get orders from Congress and the President---they carry out those orders....99% of the time with success.  

It's also funny how you will stoop to call our all volunteer army a disaster when it is the most effective fighting force on the frickin planet.  Now am I saying that there aren't things that could use improvement?...no.  There are things that could use a fine "tweaking" but then again, so does your intellectual abilities.  

"You are the scum between my toes, I hate your stinkin guts, You make me vomit."


----------



## cbi0090 (May 30, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> And how do you think the GAO screwed up?



You would have to have some first hand experience I suppose but let's try by looking at our tax laws, as an example.  Now they don't have anything to do with it but they have grown in the same manner.  The sets of rules (please note: plural) surrounding how they conduct themselves and others makes our tax laws look like a comic book.  The politicians have had their hands in the GAO's inner workings for so long there is very little left that follows a course of normal rational thought.  
I've done projects for state and federal governments.  When you price work for the federal government you have to include lots and lots of time for accounting and finance.  It's not a simple "I do the work and bill you for the hours" deal.  There are overhead issues, which is huge!!  Unbelievable!!  Expenses?  I wouldn't know where to begin.  Rates?  You'd think that was pretty cut and dry?  Hah!  Then you have subcontractors???  These are not just your usual subs, NO, they have be minority owned, women owned, disabled, disadvantaged, native american, etc.  The list is endless and they have to get a very specific percentage and, of course, they have to also follow all the rules and you have to make sure they do.  
I would charge the feds easily three times what I'd charge a state agency to do the same thing just to cover all the unknowns related to keeping the books straight.  And it is a BIG unknown.  Remember the $300 wrenches?  
The states can get crazy too, but nothing close to the feds, although California and New York are trying very hard.


----------



## Gunny (May 30, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Try sticking to the issue instead of obsessing over me.



Try addressing the issue with actual facts instead of some stupid, kneejerk reaction, or doing exactly as he says ... ignoring the people who shoot you down.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 1, 2008)

cbi0090 said:


> You would have to have some first hand experience I suppose but let's try by looking at our tax laws, as an example.  Now they don't have anything to do with it but they have grown in the same manner.  The sets of rules (please note: plural) surrounding how they conduct themselves and others makes our tax laws look like a comic book.  The politicians have had their hands in the GAO's inner workings for so long there is very little left that follows a course of normal rational thought.
> I've done projects for state and federal governments.  When you price work for the federal government you have to include lots and lots of time for accounting and finance.  It's not a simple "I do the work and bill you for the hours" deal.  There are overhead issues, which is huge!!  Unbelievable!!  Expenses?  I wouldn't know where to begin.  Rates?  You'd think that was pretty cut and dry?  Hah!  Then you have subcontractors???  These are not just your usual subs, NO, they have be minority owned, women owned, disabled, disadvantaged, native american, etc.  The list is endless and they have to get a very specific percentage and, of course, they have to also follow all the rules and you have to make sure they do.
> I would charge the feds easily three times what I'd charge a state agency to do the same thing just to cover all the unknowns related to keeping the books straight.  And it is a BIG unknown.  Remember the $300 wrenches?
> The states can get crazy too, but nothing close to the feds, although California and New York are trying very hard.



Your post is a winded rant. Very boring, contrived and unappealing.

You are talking absolute nonsense having *nothing* to do with the pointed claims made the by GAO.

If you do not think the claims are legitimate, then say so and adequately explain why.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 1, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Your post is a winded rant. Very boring, contrived and unappealing.
> 
> You are talking absolute nonsense having *nothing* to do with the pointed claims made the by GAO.
> 
> If you do not think the claims are legitimate, then say so and adequately explain why.



Where have YOU adequately explained why you believe, iin your OPINION, the claims are legitimate?

Stop disrespecting other members' posts since that is your whining little rant for ignoring anyone who disagrees with you.  

Now, you can either stop insulting others and practice what you preach, and address the arguments, or you will be restricted from the threads you cannot behave as an adult in.  

If you wish to continue to display your dishonest, insulting and childish behavior, the Flame Zone subforum has been provided for such antics.

If I have not made myself clear feel free to PM with your specific questions.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 1, 2008)

Still waiting for anyone to address the claims made by the GAO.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 1, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Still waiting for anyone to address the claims made by the GAO.



Duh...ok.

From the head of the GAO:

Comptroller General David Walker, who heads the GAO, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that "the least progress has been made on the political front." Fifteen of 37 cabinet ministers have "withdrawn support" for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and serious problems remain in other ministries, Walker said.

The most failure is at the POLITICAL level...(Nothing to do with the Military.)

It says the miltary has failed to reach 2 of the 9 goals....wow...that's an overwhelming failure.  

And I forgot to ask....since your against the war in Iraq so much (which is obviously driving your opinions of the military) how is it that the "failure" in Iraq applies to the military in Germany, Japan, U.S., Phillipines, Korea, and other nations???  You seem to be taking downfalls of one military conflict, and applying it to the entire armed forces.........you seem to possess Larkinn's aspirations of generalizations.


What a giant dog-turd you are.....(Shemptard)


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Duh...ok.
> 
> From the head of the GAO:
> 
> ...



As usual, I haven't a clue what this bizarre rant is supposed to be about.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> As far as the actual topic goes....I've stated the fualts of your conclusion numerous times....
> 1.)  The military does not make financial decisions in regards to limitations of their budget.
> 
> 2.) The military does not make decisions on where they are to wage wars.
> ...



The GAO's claims are brutally clear and none have anything to do with whatever the hell you posted above. As usual, you're arguing a position I have never challenged.

Well sir, since you cannot read worth a damn, let me spell it out for you.

The GAO claims the safeguards put in place to prevent such wanton theft and corruption were deliberately circumvented. You have not commented on this issue - the core issue of the article - because you are too busy inventing straw man arguments and obsessing over me.

Contrary to whatever runs through that lizard brain of yours, military men absolutely have a lot to with financial decisions.

Military men absolutely make decisions on where and when to wage wars.

Military men absolutely disproportionately influence legislation and policy directly concerning budgetary issues and private armies.

Military men have a hell of a lot to do with foreign policy as well.

Everything you stated in the above post is actually the opposite of what remains emblematic of the comings and goings of the real world.

The All volunteer model has been a disaster for the military and more importantly for the United States.

There existed, and still exist a group of military and civilian men with direct and indirect stakes in firms like Blackwater pimping the modern AVA model and the outsourcing of jobs. They said "Don't worry Rummy, 125,000 troops will be enough!"

But it wasn't enough, not even close. 

Instead, the taxpayers got hosed, the "right" people got all the fat contracts and the military and the country remain mired in a crappy desert.

The United States sacrificed too much of its prestige for a military model that remains more of a liability than a strength.

This essentially speaks to what the "all volunteer army" is really about: a giant ripoff masquerading as a patriotic and legitimate organizational push to transform the military. And the most culpable are certain high ranking military men and their civilian counterparts who've elected to hijack the military with the "all-volunteer army" bullshit.

Consequently, you may think I carry an extreme view but I do not. Discussion concerning the negatives of the all volunteer army remains frequently mentioned among military academic circles. It is not a new or fresh topic.

In fact, published papers from military academics addressing this very topic can be found.

I don't even think you knew such academic papers discussing this topic existed.  Thats how uninformed you remain and thats how willingly you suffer to play the court jester.

Why bother to do the research? Why tinker with the fascinating or wrestle with the significant when its so much easier to type "I powned you" and relish the role of a clown.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 2, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The GAO's claims are brutally clear and none have anything to do with whatever the hell you posted above. A usual, you're arguing a position I have never challenged.
> 
> Well sir, since you cannot read worth a damn, let me spell it out for you.
> 
> ...



Dude, you don't even own yourself.  You've been owned by everyone in this thread.  This piece of drivel here is a perfect example.  Nothing but opinion and rhetoric based on what can only be assumed is your imagination.

You have no argument.  You refuse to respond to anyone that does.  Your behavior is on the level of a junior-high-school student.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 2, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The GAO's claims are brutally clear and none have anything to do with whatever the hell you posted above. As usual, you're arguing a position I have never challenged.
> 
> Well sir, since you cannot read worth a damn, let me spell it out for you.
> 
> ...



Let me post it again for you Shemptard....

Comptroller General David Walker, who heads the GAO, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that "*the least progress has been made on the political front*." Fifteen of 37 cabinet ministers have "withdrawn support" for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and serious problems remain in other ministries, Walker said.

The stupid bull shit you are finding in your drawers and posting on this thread have nothing to do with whether or not the volunteer army has been a disaster.  Whether you have a volunteer force or a conscripted force, the same people will be making the decisions.  All you are doing is replacing a force of people who volunteer with a force of people who don't volunteer.  You still need the same supplies, equipment, training, etc....You're also adding money to the personnel charged with tracking down AWOLs and Draft Dodgers.  

Shemptard, how'd that Ice Melt again?

You're one of those people who believes it because "it's in a book" aren't you.  


And for the record, you haven't owned shit.  What you do own, is a dumbass conclusion and shit for brains.  Those, definately belong to you.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Let me post it again for you Shemptard....
> 
> Comptroller General David Walker, who heads the GAO, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that "*the least progress has been made on the political front*." Fifteen of 37 cabinet ministers have "withdrawn support" for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and serious problems remain in other ministries, Walker said.
> 
> ...



As usual, you have major reading comprehension troubles and you take your frustration out on me via insults. It is a weapon of the weak and the ignorant with nothing substantive to share.

Again, you have not addressed any of the GAO claims. What I have done is given you context. 

What you have done is present straw man, after straw man followed by your terribly written boring posts.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 2, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> As usual, you have major reading comprehension troubles and you take your frustration out on me via insults.
> 
> Again, you have not addressed any of my claims. What you have done is present straw man after straw man and torture me with terribly written boring posts.



Because your claims are assinine.  The head of GAO states that the most failure comes at the political level.  You and the strawman need to get a room together...I'm tired off bending you over and humping your arguments into oblivion. (Pardon my crudeness Ladies)


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Because your claims are assinine.  *The head of GAO states that the most failure comes at the political level.*  You and the strawman need to get a room together...I'm tired off bending you over and humping your arguments into oblivion. (Pardon my crudeness Ladies)



Of course that wasn't what I was talking about. That is what you dreamed I mentioned.

Again, I told you the GAO charged the military 'accountants' with deliberately circumventing the rules in place to prevent theft and corruption.  That is just one example of why the AVA is a disaster: it breeds a culture of corruption more profound than any other before it.

Another example of the direct and negative influence of the AVA model was the decision to send 120,000 troops to Iraq - far short of what was really required.

Instead of adhering traditional military approaches, the AVA pimps pushed for a leaner, meaner war machine and outsourced the support it needed to companies these same military men have direct and indirect interest in.

Thats the AVA army for you: the biggest scam of the century.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 2, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Of course that wasn't what I was talking about. that is what you dreamed i mentioned.
> 
> Again, I told you the GAO charged the military accountants with deliberately circumventing the rules in place to prevent theft and corruption.
> 
> *That is just one example of why the AVA is a disaster: it breeds a culture of corruption more profound than any other before it*.



Did the GAO state this exactly????   

I'll provide the link so you can find it....since it is your claim and all....

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07235r.pdf


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05798.pdf


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Did the GAO state this exactly????
> 
> I'll provide the link so you can find it....since it is your claim and all....
> 
> ...




Of course I never once claimed the GAO said the AVA has been a disaster. 

I'm just telling you what their auditing found: wanton, willful and deliberate circumvention of the rules put in place to prevent theft and corruption.

I haver never backed away from my position - which is the AVA model has been a disaster for the military and the country.  

The GAO report remains great insight into how these crooks and pimps flying the "all volunteer" banner around our country cook their books.

Just one piece of evidence into the overall scam that is the AVA model.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 2, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Of course I never once claimed the GAO said the AVA has been a disaster.
> 
> I'm just telling you what their auditing found: wanton, willful and deliberate circumvention of the rules put in place to prevent theft and corruption.
> 
> ...



LOL....yeah go ahead and backtrack you turd.  WHAT YOU have done is post a GAO report and claimed (your own personal jacked up opinion---that doesn't corroborate with the GAO report) that the AVA has been a disaster.  Then you chastise us for not coming up with credible "evidence" that it isn't, when you yourself have not posted any evidence.  Once again, you've posted information and drawn a conclusion that doesn't represent the information.  You are toast dude.  You mind as well quit posting....YOU'VE BEEN OWNED by the (According to you) "Court Jester"  and others on this thread....


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jun 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOL....yeah go ahead and backtrack you turd.  WHAT YOU have done is post a GAO report and claimed (your own personal jacked up opinion---that doesn't corroborate with the GAO report) that the AVA has been a disaster.  Then you chastise us for not coming up with credible "evidence" that it isn't, when you yourself have not posted any evidence.  Once again, you've posted information and drawn a conclusion that doesn't represent the information.  You are toast dude.  You mind as well quit posting....YOU'VE BEEN OWNED by the (According to you) "Court Jester"  and others on this thread....



There you go again. Saying "I'm toast" or saying "I've been owned."

It's as if you actually think stating such stupid phrases does anything to substantiate any legitimate claims you may have. 

By far, the only case you have made is title of the most bizarre self-absorbed internet personality I've witnessed in a long time.

Like I said, the AVA has been a disaster and the GAO report illuminates with stunning clarity one aspect of the total failure that is the AVA model.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 2, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> There you go again. Saying "I'm toast" or saying "I've been owned."
> 
> It's as if you actually think stating such stupid phrases does anything to substantiate any legitimate claims you may have.
> 
> ...




The GAO does not insinuate that the AVA has been a disaster.  It doesn't state it. And in fact, the head of the GAO says the most failure has been at the political level.  The GAO does not state that the AVA has been a disaster.  It is a biased opinion developed by you, using information that is unrepresentative of your conclusion.  We are all dumber now for reading your ignorance.   I want to personally thankyou for wasting everyone's time as well as the bandwidth of this thread....(GUNNY,I know I'm contributing by arguing with this low-life and "know-it-all" wanna be-but I just can't help revealing him for the dumb-ass that he is.)  What makes me laugh even more, is that he uses big words and "deep" rhetoric to appear intelligent....

Listen here Galileo ressurect, You've got a long way to go to even begin to sound intelligent....so keep working on it and come back when you've figured out how to intelligently debate.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 2, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> There you go again. Saying "I'm toast" or saying "I've been owned."
> 
> It's as if you actually think stating such stupid phrases does anything to substantiate any legitimate claims you may have.
> 
> ...



This is what you sound like:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=related[/ame]

And this is my response:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA[/ame]


----------

