You said:

"Let me spell it out for you in simple terms. Woman and minority owned businesses are given preferential treatment when bidding for government contracts. It's the law. You see, it's one of those affirmative action/social justice things that the Democrats are so big on. Of course, in your world you don't think it's racist to give priority based on race or sex, so long as the correct demographic is advanced. You and Bull Connor would have a lot in common on that point.

So here's how it works. There are woman and minority-owned businesses out there that bid on contracts and get them. But they themselves don't do the work -- they subcontract it out to another company. Of course, the company they sub it out to delivers the service cheaper than what the shadow company won the bid for -- and the shadow company pockets the profit. So in the end, the government pays a higher price than needed in order to satisfy a social agenda. In the world of public administation and governance, the word we use to refer to money spent on an artificially inflated price is "waste."

This is your theory and you state it as if it is fact. You being a white male republican hate anything to do with affirmative action. You feel it is unfair to you as a white male and white males in general. While nothing is perfect affirmative action had it's place when the business world was once dominated by white males and minorities and women didn't have a chance to get their foot in the door due to racism. Has that time passed? Maybe, maybe not, as this election has shown that there are still many who hold a deep dislike if not outright hatred to those who aren't white.

Another problem with your example and theory is that you hold any action by a 'white businessman' to be completely above board and legit and in the same breath imply that any action by a 'minority or women business person' is suspect and they are only trying to scam the system. You are blind to your prejudices.

In regard to your statement here:

"In terms of contractors in the field, here's the simple version you might understand. The military has been cut by almost half what it was in 1990. That forced the military to make the decision to outsource support services in order to preserve core competencies like combat specialties. When war in Afghanistan and Iraq kicked up, the military didn't have enough military numbers to send forward for those functions. Many of those functions had been outsourced, and the only answer was to pay to have a private company perform the function in theater. "

Well when you had an administration decide to start a war based on lies because they thought it'd be easy, they should have been prepared, as they were gambling with peoples lives.

But, let's be honest, that's not the real reason they decided to hire a mercenary army and subcontract all the logistic and reconstruction work. It was profits, big, fat, huge, profits, for Halliburton and Blackwater. The US gov. was paying huge no bid contracts to these outfits where many times contract work was very shoddy or wasn't even completed and or mercenaries were guarding food and utensil shipments.

Remember when US troops were paying five dollars for bottles of water sold by KBR and some obscene amount for telephone calls back home. Again, PROFITS, that's what the main emphasis was on. While at the same time they talked about how much they 'loved' the troops they were gauging them blind.

The CEO's of these companies were co-workers, friends, and campaign supporters of Bush and Cheney.

You said:

"Here's a clue -- you gotta pay through the nose to get civilians to go into a combat zone. I don't know what you do for a living, but what would we have to pay you to leave your family behind and do the same job in a place that gets mortared on a regular basis? The high cost of contracts isn't the military's fault -- it's due to a political decision that drove force structure changes that led to outsourcing. Furthermore, there aren't a lot of companies that can do what the military needs over there.

Civilian contractors have been on the battlefield for our nation's entire history. If you don't like it, support candidates that would build military capability and take those functions back."

To borrow a line from your hero, Reagan, there you go again! Listen expat if you can break out of the vise like grip of neocon worship read the book Inside Blackwater, it explains all of the screw ups in terms of contract work and the illegal cowboy actions of the mercenary troops over there. You do a dishonor to the troops by defending these vultures.

For anyone interested in truth and reality check out this link for the Documentary No End In Sight. The movie goes over the limitless incompetence of the Bush Admin in the first year of the war and touches on the civilian contractor issue.

http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/

Among those interviewed are:
General Jay Garner, who briefly ran the reconstruction before being replaced by L. Paul Bremer
Ambassador Barbara Bodine, who was placed in charge of the Baghdad embassy
Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of the State Department
Robert Hutchings, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff
Col. Paul Hughes, who worked in the ORHA and then the CPA
Marc Garlasco

I think any one of them is just as if not exceptionally more qualified then expat to speak on the issue. Please watch it, it is powerful stuff.

SoCo, quit talking out of your backside.

Preference in government contracts isn't my "theory" --- it's federal law, you dolt.

Your answer on this point also show's you're lockstep with the idea of redistributive economics and reparations, too.

Did I say "white businessman" anywhere? Nope. Nor did I say that white = legitimacy. Stop throwing the race card around to try to win some sort of argument that's far beyond your capacity.

Your understanding of military affairs and warfare is moronic, and boils down to "Bush lied." You're a one-trick pony. Since the only bullet in your belt, you fire it no matter what the issue. That has absolutely no point in a discussion about how military contracts work.

As for the idiotic theory that contracts are there only to enrich people, have you ever been responsible for managing so much as a dime of a military budget? I've had jobs where I responsible for $3 billion worth of equipment and budget -- you're a buffoon to think I have enough money to pay contractors just to make them rich.

As for KBR, you're completely pulling things out of your rectum. You've never touched a drop of KBR water, so don't even bother talking about how bad it is. I've been there. And oh, by the way -- I never spent a dime on long distance calls from the AOR, and came back with free phone cards that people and organizations had donated.

You're way out of your element here.

You are about as credible as another one of your heros, Ted Stevens.

Again, for truth seekers, here's some links on KBR and Halliburton:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/03/06/top_iraq_contractor...

KBR and contaminated water given to the troops:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2008/06/iraq-general-contaminated...

Read this one:

http://49-reasons.com/reviews/iraq_for_sale.htm

Why expat, why, do you favor and support those that have taken advantage of our soldiers?

Attacking my credibility??

You have brought the same thing you always bring to the table -- media stories. But nothing you can come up with on your own.

What do I bring? I've been there. Have you ever huddled in a bunker at 2 in the morning during a rocket attack? Have you ever set one toe in a KBR DFAC? Have you ever made a phone call from Afghanistan? Have you ever ridden in a troop seat staring at flag draped coffins in front of you?

I have, buster. You got nothing when it comes to credibility. Same thing goes for your utter ignorance when it comes to managing government contracts.

The more you continue to argue on this issue, the more ignorant you look.

Sitting in a bunker and making a long distance call from Afghanistan from proves two things beyond a shadow of a doubt that you sat in a bunker and made a call from Afghanistan. While I can applaud your courage for being in a war zone that fact, that you were in a war zone, doesn't discount anything I have said or the information I have posted about the bungling ineptitude, gross negligence, and immoral malfeasance the Bush administration carried out with approval and support by the republican congress and most republicans.

The more you argue against the face of overwhelming evidence that supports my position makes you look like a sad man who refuses to accept and face reality.

Actually, what I said does discount you, because it exposes your utter lack of credibility on the matter. I have 20 years of experience in this area. I'm the one living the reality; you're just reading about it from your easy chair.

You don't have overwhelming evidence. You have overwhelming opinion cut and pasted from other people's work on moonbat websites. There's a difference.

Holding your hands to your temples and repeating dogma until the veins pop on your forehead doesn't give you credibility.

Okay, you are the one living reality. So that, I can better understand your expertise which trumps anyone else's give me your credentials again in regard to geo political and strategic military planning and decision making.

No, I'm not talking about your love and study of history, I am talking about your role in the planning and execution of policy in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, not in AO type of environment, because I defer you may be the best Platoon commander in the Army when it comes to small unit tactics. I am talking about policy at a much higher level that renders you the one and only authority!

I'm no platoon commander. Platoon commanders don't get held accountable for $3 billion worth of stuff and hundreds of people.

Am I in charge of planning the war effort? No. Have I executed it? Yes. Have I worked policy at higher headquarters level? Yes. I would certainly never claim to be the one and only authority, because I've worked with a lot of people who know it much better than I. I'm not going to spell out who I am, my rank, and where I work because everything I post on here is my personal opinion and not that of my employer.

I will say, however, that I have a Master's Degree in Military Operational Art and Science, and that my research for that degree specialized in 4th Generation and asymmetric warfare. I've also spent a lot of time in lectures and asking questions of senior (i.e. 4-star) officers, the civilian secretaries they work for, people like former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and analysts from places like the Brookings Institute. While I was at it, I got to spend time getting to know officers from other nations' militaries, to include just about every Eastern block country, Israel, Jordan, central Asian nations, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Turkey, and Venezuela. I've also been around the world, to include places like Egypt, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Korea, and Japan.

But hey -- you sit in your sweats and cruise websites. Who am I to question your judgment when it comes to warfare, military affairs and geopolitics?

And by the way, SoCo, here are some more data points to consider when railing against the cost of military contractors:

- Thanks to the Davis-Bacon act of 1931, the military must pay particular wages to contractors. For example, when writing a contract, civil engineers must fund electricians at $60 per hour -- regardless of the actual cost of labor. So in a place like Del Rio, Texas, for example, legislation designed to protect American workers actually provides incentive to employ undocumented labor because the contractor pockets the difference between the $60 and the actual pay for the electrician.

- Along the same vein, federal law requires engineers to buy American construction materials. So if you buy carpet for an office at a base in Okinawa, you have to buy American-made carpet from an American supplier and ship it over.

- Uniforms are required to be American-made. Thus, we pay twice as much for an official uniform made in Puerto Rico as we would for a comparable product on the civilian market made in the Dominican Republic. As a result, one utility uniform costs close to a hundred bucks at the clothing sales store nowadays.

As I said before, the bottom line is that much of the cost of government contracts goes to satisfy political agendas of the legislators who wrote the rulebook. One of the reasons military functions get outsourced to private business is that private business isn't bound by the same rules as the government and can deliver services cheaper.

Do I understand you right expat? Are you saying that you have been the beneficiary of many of these lucrative contracts? Please expand on this, perhaps I'm beginning to understand. Substitute the word committed with raked in?