Halliburton Wins Iraq Contract

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: BDawg
CNN Link

Suprise, suprise, suprise...

"To Iraqi soldiers: Don't destroy oil wells, they are the property and prosperity of the Iraqi people."

Iraqi people like al-Cheney...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: BDawg
CNN Link

Suprise, suprise, suprise...

"To Iraqi soldiers: Don't destroy oil wells, they are the property and prosperity of the Iraqi people."

Iraqi people like al-Cheney...

 

[MinorityReport]

This is nothign new or there is NO way one can prove MALpractice with this contract.

Cheney and Bush will make their friends get the spoils of war. Dems make sure the same for their supporters. It is a cycle that changes color with every new term.

The credibility of ANY company which is a friend of Bush adminstration, HAS TO BE questioned and looked uopn with intense scrutiny.

Enron comes to mind, first and foremost.

Enrons biggest scam was the Power Plant they wanted to make in India.

However, what happened in Dhabol, Maharasthra, with Enron is amazimg.

Enron wanted to make a $3.2 billion 2200 MW electricity generation plant in western India.

Instead fo making a plant, all they did was bribe the pathetic indian government, IMF and WB to allow funds for that project.. without having build ANYTHING AT ALL.

This power plant existed ONLY ON paper .. and the funds were spent without a single brick being laid for actual construction work !!!!!!!!!!!

Out of $3.2 billion, $1.3 billion went as bribes to every minister, bureacrat and members of policy making agencies in india, World Bankand IMF.

I know a Indian memeber of parliamnet who has a $6.5 million penthosue ( 4000 sq feet ) with indoor pool, maid quarters in Trumph Towers in NYC .. as a gift from Enron deals.
Wonderful Indians . . 30% of the nation is below poverty line and their leaders buying huge properties and investemnts on public money.

For $6.5 million, 3000 families ( 4 persons ) can be supportred in India for a whole year.


Enrons' bityach Rebecca MArk even slept with some ministers to get that contract.( Speculative )

Damm that $3.2 billion dissapered in smoke within 8 months.

If you go now to that proposed site, all you see are cows grazing peacefully in the dug out areas with a board that reads " ENRON DHABOL POWER PLANT ".

Bush and his whole admin is a dangerous possibly potential scam .. one has to be very careful with their business ethics and practices. We the public should be forewarned.

However, if compared to Indian and other third world leaders, Bush is a becon of TRUTH and honesty

So cheer up fellow americans, you got a good man leading you .. not the bightest but he gets it done well

 

[Corn]

Ok, let's put everything on record here:

Everything was alread on record before.

You agree that:

1. OJ was acquitted fair and square by our court according to the rule of law.
2. The decision by the court that made OJ innocent of the murder charges conflicts with your belief that OJ should've been guilty as charged, in other words, in your view, you don't think the outcome is fair and square to victims' families.

Conflicting thoughts indeed!

This is why I think you're a moron. Never have I claimed or intended to claim that the outcome for anything is fair. Let me quote again for the dim: It's not the outcome that is supposed to be "fair", but the process.

There is no conflict. In a perfect world would there be "perfect" justice? Sure, no victims would suffer and no criminals would ever go free. That's a fantasy however, and the most we can hope for is applying the law fairly. OJ got a fair trial. So did the victm's families when they sued OJ in a civil trial.

Is it fair that you were born an idiot? Of course not, but what else can be done?

 

[FuzzyBee]

The credibility of ANY company which is a friend of Bush adminstration, HAS TO BE questioned and looked uopn with intense scrutiny.

Enron comes to mind, first and foremost.

Enron was a friend of the clinton administration, as well. They are a friend of anybody they think'll be in power.

Your point is?

 

[SgtBuddy]

Originally posted by: Corn

Halliburton's KBR unit was involved in putting out the 1991 fires.

Suprise, suprise.......well maybe not. I'm absolutely shocked that the US government would award a contract to a company that has a known history of accomplishing feats that the government currently has concern for. It just boggles my mind...........

I agree


For those who don't, who would you hire?!?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: lupy

Originally posted by: Corn

The hypocrisy is apparent. You agreed with the court's decision and concludes that "OJ was acquitted fair and square", then your opinion that you think OJ was guilty directly conflicts what you have stated a moment ago.

It absolutely positively 100% does not! OJ was acquitted "fair and square", my opinion as far as what I believe his guilt or innocense has nothing to do with the former. Talk about a lack of logical reasoning! I never said that I agreed with the jury's decision, only that I thought their decision was rendered fair and square according to the rules the jury was charged with following. Misrepresenting what I say doesn't help your position. Quite the contrary.

If you want to argue on the point of technicality, then let's do so:

Did or didn't you say "OJ was acquitted fair and square" by the court? I didn't put anything extra in your mouth, you said it! Now apparently you are trying to back out and say you don't agree with the "fair and square" decision made by our judicial system, which is it? If that's not illogical thinking, I don't know what is!

You dug yourself a hole, now it's your job to pull yourself out!

You obviously don't understand the way the judicial system works. Just because someone was aquitted does not mean they are truly innocent.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

As for the leaflets....every heard of PsyOps?

Ever hear of "generating revenue?"

If the Iraqi army knew that Bush and Cheney would personally profit from burning oil fields, do you think they would burn them?

You are making no sense.....

Think about it. Your dad comes in and says "I don't want you to go paint graffiti on the mall." You hate your dad's guts, so you go spraypaint the wall...not knowing that your dad's janitorial firm gets a huge contract from the mall owners.

But if you DID know that your dad was gonna get rich by something YOU did out of hatred, would you do it? Do you defy him and spraypaint the wall anyway knowing it makes him rich, or do you say f you and NOT spray paint the wall, hurting him more?

Your logic is astounding.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

So you want the Iraqi Oil Company which is run by the Iraqi government that we are now fighting to be awarded the contract to put out the fires that the Iraqi military started. Boy, you're a smart one. The fires are burning now and I don't think we want to wait around to start putting them out.

i thought that after the US gets done with the war Bush was going to install a new goverment. your statement doesn't make any sense.

 

[Moonbeam]

I see no hope for our country unless we take back our government from special interest groups by eliminating money from the election and petition process. We have to care about the welfare of the whole and not parts of the whole who have the muscle to get what they want. We need a populist revolution.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

So you want the Iraqi Oil Company which is run by the Iraqi government that we are now fighting to be awarded the contract to put out the fires that the Iraqi military started. Boy, you're a smart one. The fires are burning now and I don't think we want to wait around to start putting them out.

i thought that after the US gets done with the war Bush was going to install a new goverment. your statement doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense? The fact that we don't want to wait around until there is a new Iraqi government established before we start putting out oil well fires?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I see no hope for our country unless we take back our government from special interest groups by eliminating money from the election and petition process. We have to care about the welfare of the whole and not parts of the whole who have the muscle to get what they want. We need a populist revolution.

Trust me.....a populist revolution is not what you want. Oklahoma was a populist state during it's infancy and the populists wrote our constitution.....a constitution which to my knowledge is still the longest in the world. Everything in the world is spelled out in there...some of the highlights include laws against hunting whale in Oklahoma, laws against whistling underwater in Oklahoma, etc, etc, etc....the populists decided that they should plan for any and everything in the Oklahoma Constitution....because of that it, and the state government have always been a mess here.

 

[Moonbeam]

We don't need a new Constitution.

 

[Feldenak]

Sydney Morning Herald article about the Halliburton contract

Some quotes from the article:

"KBR was selected for this award based on the fact that KBR is the only contractor that could commence implementing the complex contingency plan on extremely short notice," the company said in a statement.

The company was given a free hand to choose subcontractors for the work, the Corps spokesman said.

KBR chose Houston-based Boots and Coots International, with which it has a services and equipment partnership, and Wild Well Control Inc as firefighting subcontractors.

Boots and Coots was brought into Kuwait in 1991 to control about 240 of more than 700 burning wells following the Gulf War, it said.

Seemed like a logical decision to me.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

So you want the Iraqi Oil Company which is run by the Iraqi government that we are now fighting to be awarded the contract to put out the fires that the Iraqi military started. Boy, you're a smart one. The fires are burning now and I don't think we want to wait around to start putting them out.

i thought that after the US gets done with the war Bush was going to install a new goverment. your statement doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense? The fact that we don't want to wait around until there is a new Iraqi government established before we start putting out oil well fires?

do you think that the US is going to give them 30 days to pack up their things and find a new job ???

no they are going to kick them out right away. some might go directly to jail .

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

So you want the Iraqi Oil Company which is run by the Iraqi government that we are now fighting to be awarded the contract to put out the fires that the Iraqi military started. Boy, you're a smart one. The fires are burning now and I don't think we want to wait around to start putting them out.

i thought that after the US gets done with the war Bush was going to install a new goverment. your statement doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense? The fact that we don't want to wait around until there is a new Iraqi government established before we start putting out oil well fires?

do you think that the US is going to give them 30 days to pack up their things and find a new job ???

no they are going to kick them out right away. some might go directly to jail .

What?

 

[ManSnake]

What else is new? Bush/Cheney = special interest groups' lapdog, will do anything to make money.

But you gotta give them this though, at least they are not trying to cover up their tracks.

Fortunately the Senate still got some clear-minded folks, Bush's tax cut is halved by the Rep. controlled Senate today, there is still hope for this country!

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Concentrations of power are very dangerous. Things are really starting to stagnate with all this backscratching.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I see no hope for our country unless we take back our government from special interest groups by eliminating money from the election and petition process. We have to care about the welfare of the whole and not parts of the whole who have the muscle to get what they want. We need a populist revolution.

WHOA! I agree with a statement by moonbeam! :Q

I've long abhored (sp?) the lobbyist influence in the government. It's not a government of the people, by the people, for the people anymore. It's for whomever coughs up the most cash and presents the most effective (persuasive) case to a congressman or senator (and a little quid pro quo).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
What else is new? Bush/Cheney = special interest groups' lapdog, will do anything to make money.

Insert Clinton/Gore and the same holds true. Heck, insert any politician's name and the same holds true. It's nothing unique to the current administration.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I see no hope for our country unless we take back our government from special interest groups by eliminating money from the election and petition process. We have to care about the welfare of the whole and not parts of the whole who have the muscle to get what they want. We need a populist revolution.

How do you propose we do that without limiting free speech?

(You realize that is the question when it comes to this issue)

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I see no hope for our country unless we take back our government from special interest groups by eliminating money from the election and petition process. We have to care about the welfare of the whole and not parts of the whole who have the muscle to get what they want. We need a populist revolution.

How do you propose we do that without limiting free speech?

(You realize that is the question when it comes to this issue)

It's the only question.

And I don't have an answer.

 

[Moonbeam]

How do you propose we do that without limiting free speech?

(You realize that is the question when it comes to this issue)
---------------------------
Yes I realize it. There are two problems as I see it. One is that corporations are persons according to the Supreme court and the other is that speech is money. These two thinks need to be changed, in my opinion, by popular revolt at the ballot box. The people who maintain this status quo that is killing us need to be removed and relpaced by those who will change the law. I favor retaking the public airwaves and limiting commertial tv and radio making way for a number of competing independent and mandated funded news entities that report news commertial free and poliotically indemendent of content. They should have time allocated free to candidates and all political points of view. The American mindset at present is warped by commertial interests who have no interest in large numbers independent rational thinking people wondering around in the market place. The present system is rotten right to the core.

 

[Corn]

I favor retaking the public airwaves and limiting commertial tv and radio making way for a number of competing independent and mandated funded news entities that report news commertial free and poliotically indemendent of content.

Of course you do Moonie. What kind of news content would you mandate? Something like they've got going in Iraq?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How do you propose we do that without limiting free speech?

(You realize that is the question when it comes to this issue)
---------------------------
Yes I realize it. There are two problems as I see it. One is that corporations are persons according to the Supreme court and the other is that speech is money.

You will never stop me from taking out an ad in the paper saying Candidate X is an idiot. You will never stop me from giving money to someone who wants to buy 1000 ads saying Candidate X is an idiot.

And it's "money is speech"...and it most certainly is.