The W
Views: 97820404
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.7.07 1635
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Haliburton
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1729 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (21 total)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1414/3273
EXP: 12659715
For next: 12269

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#1 Posted on 27.3.03 2300.25
Reposted on: 27.3.10 2302.54
Okay, this has been brought up in several different threads, so I thought it might as well get a thread of it's own.

My thoughts on it are like this:

Here we are, engaged in a war with Iraq, which is nowhere near completed. We know that we're going to try and rebuild Iraq (though no concrete plans have been set) but because the war is not over we have no idea how much damage we are going to have repair. Flying in the face of logic, our government has decided to hand out contracts for undisclosed sums of money to rebuild Iraq when we obviously have no idea how much it's going to cost. So if this doesn't sound fishy enough, one of the contracts is going to Haliburton, whose former CEO is our Vice President.

Even if I didn't feel skeptical of the administration for other reasons, this would still make me stop and say, "What the fuck?"

-Jag
Promote this thread!
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 108/2250
EXP: 7204031
For next: 264910

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 5 min.
#2 Posted on 27.3.03 2349.37
Reposted on: 27.3.10 2352.11
To me, that alone is proof enough as to why we are really there. Here's an article from the London Guardian:

US firms get $1.5bn deal to rebuild Iraq

And the Brits are finally realizing what they got themselves into:

British anger as port contract goes to US firm rather than to locals

Let me be the first to suggest we rename "English Muffins" to "Freedom Muffins"...
Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 100

Posts: 1024/2805
EXP: 10062572
For next: 291860

Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3505 days
Last activity: 1925 days
#3 Posted on 28.3.03 0249.35
Reposted on: 28.3.10 0251.34
surprise, Surprise, SURPRISE

Actually I'm not, American politics are as dirty as an off coast oil spill. When top politicians with so many strings attack this is no surprise at all.

I always believe in follow the money trail exposes a lot and in this case 1.5 Billion for starters is exposing Bush and the gang.
Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 37/172
EXP: 145653
For next: 2233

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3810 days
Last activity: 2584 days
#4 Posted on 28.3.03 0354.24
Reposted on: 28.3.10 0355.48
This is not unexpected, the Americans are doing what any other nation would have done. Had the French led this attack, they would have done the same, ditto for anyone else.

And THIS is why I feel it is so important to go back to the UN. Let the administration of Iraq and its rebuilding be done through the UN.

One of the reasons why the US was prepeared to lead this war is, no matter what the cost, in the long term the US economy will benefit. I'm not saying its the only reason or the most important, but it was certainly high up on the list.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 589/1528
EXP: 4047463
For next: 143685

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2745 days
Last activity: 2588 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 28.3.03 0701.50
Reposted on: 28.3.10 0705.47
Imagine, for a minute, that George Bush is an honest man and he really thinks Saddam needs to go, for all of our safety.

Now, what's wrong with recouping some of the monetary costs?

I don't see at all why this is a way to go back to the U.N. All that says is, "No need for you to help us in the future, we'll be glad to die for your oil." The important difference, to me, is that the U.S. would be recouping the cost of war. These other nations would simply be getting a free lunch.
Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 38/172
EXP: 145653
For next: 2233

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3810 days
Last activity: 2584 days
#6 Posted on 28.3.03 0705.17
Reposted on: 28.3.10 0706.17
The British would be getting a free lunch?

Last I checked, Bush was elected President of the United State and not of Iraq or World Affairs.

I don't see how the US administration can decide what is best for Iraq and how and with who to go about rebuilding it.

Control should be turned over to the UN who should look to appoint an interim Iraqi government WHO in turn should decide how they wish to rebuild their country and who they wish to offer contracts out to. If they choose US based companies, then great, but it should be their choice.

(edited by Crip on 28.3.03 0514)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1415/3273
EXP: 12659715
For next: 12269

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#7 Posted on 28.3.03 1310.07
Reposted on: 28.3.10 1318.55
Eh, I don't really trust the UN to do the rebuilding either, though I would like it if we at least asked for their advice/help in setting up a new government. The main thing about the UN is it's just a group of countries that will all vote for their own interests, so whoever is losing the popularity contest (and I don't think the Iraqi people are even on the ballot here) will get screwed.

As for the rest of what Palp said, I don't really see how the government is recouping any of the costs. Bush has already asked for an extra 75 billion dollars that wasn't even budgeted (even though he's been talking about this war for two years) and part of that money has already been given out in contracts such as the one to Haliburton. The only way the US makes any money out of this is if Haliburton gets control of the Iraqi oil, and the US taxes the amount of money they make off of it.

-Jag

So anyway, where is this 75 billion going to come from? Bush has lowered taxes, so apparently we're not going to pay for it out of pocket. So do we just stop paying off the deficit? Or are we going to see program cuts coming?
commie_050
Cotechino
Level: 21

Posts: 47/81
EXP: 48212
For next: 1732

Since: 8.8.02
From: San Antonio, TX

Since last post: 3662 days
Last activity: 3660 days
#8 Posted on 28.3.03 1414.51
Reposted on: 28.3.10 1429.01
But Bush isn't recouping the costs for the American taxpayers, who are financing this war. He's making a concession to major corporations.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 356/1136
EXP: 2592584
For next: 302

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3133 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 28.3.03 1616.13
Reposted on: 28.3.10 1618.58

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Imagine, for a minute, that George Bush is an honest man and he really thinks Saddam needs to go, for all of our safety.


I tried, but the sheer absurdity of the notion gave me a splitting headache. There hasn't been an honest man in the office of President for a long, long time. The Bush administration is just being very, very blatant about their corruption.
Enojado Viento
Potato korv
Level: 53

Posts: 437/662
EXP: 1145471
For next: 11655

Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 636 days
Last activity: 54 days
#10 Posted on 28.3.03 1701.26
Reposted on: 28.3.10 1701.46
OK, for those keeping score--

Haliburton wa simplicated, along with Enron in rigging the 2000 enegery crisis in California. An investigation into this was stopped by order of our VP and (allaegedly) former Haliburton exec, Dick Cheney. No explanation, just "stop."

Flash forward to today--Haliburton gets contracts to rebuild Iraq after the war without even the formality of bidding on them against other corporations. They were given this by executive decision--we wouldn't know about this but for a leaked document.

I may be overly suspicious, but there's such a thing as too much coincedence.

Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 264/443
EXP: 631850
For next: 28319

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2782 days
Last activity: 2782 days
#11 Posted on 28.3.03 1935.42
Reposted on: 28.3.10 1937.30
I'm going to repost this a month after I originally stole it ... why not, eh?:

(I have stolen this from the Fun Happy Slander Corner at Fuckedcompany.com -- the funniest messageboard I have ever lurked. I did not write it, I don't know if the facts are correct, but the author does seem to have his/her shit together.

The author, by the way, is named I. Emma Troll. Best. Messageboardname. Ever.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Something to think about...

Do not the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Blair relationships to the oil industry, the Bush Administration's desire to put Iraq under U.S. control, and America's heavy dependency on Iraqi oil make you wonder what other considerations may be at play? Please read the facts below and see if you can shed some light on the interesting relationships and ulterior motives that can be read from these facts.

Facts:

* 31% of U.S. oil comes from Arab OPEC countries.

* 86% of oil imported to the U.S. from the middle east comes from Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

* In July of 2002 Chevron imported 5,061,000 barrels from Iraq.

* Chevron imports nearly five times more oil to the U.S. from Iraq than any other oil company.

* Chevron is the only major U.S. oil company that imports more oil from Iraq than from Saudi Arabia.

sources for the above facts: Department of Energy publications located here or here

* There are current Bush Administration plans to further reduce our dependency on Saudi Arabian oil, and to replace the Saudi supply with Iraqi oil.

source: Jane's Foreign Report

* BP (British Petroleum) is the only oil company other than Chevron that imports more oil to the U.S. from Iraq than from any other middle eastern nation.

source: Boycott Middle-East Oil, verified with Department of Energy stats

* Britain is the only other country who's government is strongly backing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

source: The Observer

* George Bush Sr. is a former director of Halliburton. He is now one of the directors of The Carlyle Group, one of the U.S.'s largest defense contractors.

source: The Consortium and Here In Reality

* Dick Cheney, was Halliburton's chairman and chief executive. Halliburton is the world's largest oil field services company.

source: WhiteHouse.org

* Halliburton has signed contracts and provides services to Chevron.

source: The Consortium

* The Bush Administrations' National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, was a former director of Chevron and held a quarter of a million shares of Chevron stock. She even had a tanker named after her until before being appointed by President Bush.

sources: Multinational Monitor and Democratic Underground

These facts show there is a serious conflict of interest with the relationships between the Bush family, the Bush Administration, Chevron, and Halliburton. The facts show the Bush family and friends stand to profit greatly from war and the controlled flow of Iraqi oil. Why should these conflicts of interest be allowed to progress to the point of war? The invasion of Iraq will certainly kill many people who have no interest, and who's families will not profit from the success or failure of Chevron, BP, Halliburton, or the Carlyle Group.

[snip an analogy about Sun Microsystems taking over the U.S. government.]

Let's review: Halliburton is the largest oil field services provider and provides services to Chevron. Bush Sr. was a director of Halliburton. Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. Chevron is the #1 importer of Iraqi oil. There are Bush administration plans to reduce demand for Saudi oil and use Iraqi oil in place. Bush wants to invade Iraq. Invasions bring profit to defense contractors. Bush's daddy is one of the directors of one of the largest defense contractors. See the circle of greed and profit?

-----------------------------------------------------------

(This is why many people just aren't willing to take Bush's word on why war is necessary. The Military-Industrial Complex is alive and well, and making some Americans very, very rich.)



Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 357/1136
EXP: 2592584
For next: 302

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3133 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on 28.3.03 2200.22
Reposted on: 28.3.10 2200.22
Wasn't Haliburton also the company who got the contract to rape the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve when the current administration gave the go-ahead to drill for oil there?

(I honestly can't recall if it was them, specifically, which is why I ask, but I do remember that it was a company that Cheney had strong ties to.)

If it weren't such a grotesque demonstration of unethical behavior and greed, it'd be somewhat refreshing that they're not even really trying to cover their tracks.
Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 245/645
EXP: 1084950
For next: 72176

Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2776 days
Last activity: 2760 days
#13 Posted on 29.3.03 0009.56
Reposted on: 29.3.10 0016.16

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    The important difference, to me, is that the U.S. would be recouping the cost of war. These other nations would simply be getting a free lunch.


The US isn't going to recoup shit. Haliburton is going to make a killing. The two are very seperate entities.
Chico Santana
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 173/509
EXP: 762659
For next: 3550

Since: 2.7.02
From: Jaaaaamacia Mon, No Problem.

Since last post: 3969 days
Last activity: 3967 days
#14 Posted on 29.3.03 0201.22
Reposted on: 29.3.10 0202.39
IMHO I think that America will not make money off this war. We might, but I think all of us here will be old or dead by that time. I think that France and Russia are the ones with their minds more on the oil. Even if it's about oil for us, we ain't gonna make any money because we have to pay for the war and the rebuilding.
And alot of people bitch about the oil, why? Does your car run on water? If so hook me up I'd like to know.If you got an electric, I say bitch on it's your right. And if your house is heated with oil, don't bitch until you change it. If it's heated by coal, I say bitch on it's your right.
If you hate our G-men for their hypocrisy, then I ask you to not be a hypocrite yourself. Furthermore the people of Iraq will finally at some point in the near future reap the benefits of their land(Without some dick building brand new plush palaces while his people fucking starve). Saddam was a man all about oil, why did he attack Iran?(in the oil-producing Khuzistan Province). IMO I could care less if this war is for oil because the people of Iraq won't have to worry about Saddam and his goons. The goons that have had free reign over the people, the right to kill, rape, and steal, with out any persecution.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 360/1136
EXP: 2592584
For next: 302

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3133 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 29.3.03 0403.35
Reposted on: 29.3.10 0403.40

    Originally posted by Chico Santana
    IMHO I think that America will not make money off this war. We might, but I think all of us here will be old or dead by that time. I think that France and Russia are the ones with their minds more on the oil. Even if it's about oil for us, we ain't gonna make any money because we have to pay for the war and the rebuilding.
    And alot of people bitch about the oil, why? Does your car run on water?



Nope. But it doesn't run on blood, either. I'm no fan of Saddam, and with knees as bad as mine I can't exactly walk everywhere I need to go. But I don't think it's right that our troops are putting their lives in danger so that rich people can get richer, and we can get gas a little cheaper.

I honestly hope that when this is all said and done, that the Iraqi people have a decent chance at living prosperously under a decent leader. I'm just not terribly optimistic about it happening. We were fully behind Saddam until we decided he wasn't useful any more... what's stopping us from propping up another dictator who, say, is willing to sell us Osama Bin Laden's location?
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 567/1084
EXP: 2417399
For next: 44465

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2903 days
Last activity: 2899 days
#16 Posted on 29.3.03 0644.16
Reposted on: 29.3.10 0646.41
What the fuck?

apparently, Haliburton's out. Very weird. When I saw it mentioned on BBC International (I'm back in Japan now, so it's back to Japanese tv coverage) a week or so ago, it sounded like a done deal.



edited for lack of a quotation mark

(edited by eviljonhunt81 on 29.3.03 0646)
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 396/763
EXP: 1427169
For next: 58768

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 497 days
Last activity: 112 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on 29.3.03 0820.39
Reposted on: 29.3.10 0825.16

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    I honestly hope that when this is all said and done, that the Iraqi people have a decent chance at living prosperously under a decent leader. I'm just not terribly optimistic about it happening. We were fully behind Saddam until we decided he wasn't useful any more... what's stopping us from propping up another dictator who, say, is willing to sell us Osama Bin Laden's location?



Well until the war in 1991 the Iraqis were very prosperous and wealthy. It was the sanctions that crippled their economy. And the United States really isnt against Dictators or monarchies, but since we are a democracy, thats what we like to see others doing.

With that I dont think we really care who has chemical and bio weapons. Nuclear is a diffrent story, we consider the nuclear club closed and no one else gets in. But chem/bio weapons are so cheap and easy to produce (and hide) that its futile to chase everybody whos trying to develop it. The thing with Saddam was he was in a war he lost and as a condition to stop fighting he agreed to get rid of all his WMD programs. He has refused and we are where we are today.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1418/3273
EXP: 12659715
For next: 12269

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#18 Posted on 29.3.03 1024.57
Reposted on: 29.3.10 1029.02
Actually, the Iraqi economy was already a mess because of the war with Iran. Their whole reason for going to war (given by Saddam and his Prime Minister, so feel free to take it as you will) was because they felt that Kuwait was underselling them and deliberately attempting to keep the Iraqi's from getting their economy going again at the behest of the US. So after threatening Kuwait over the summer, they invaded.

-Jag
Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 40/172
EXP: 145653
For next: 2233

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3810 days
Last activity: 2584 days
#19 Posted on 29.3.03 1044.15
Reposted on: 29.3.10 1049.44
The Kuwati's were slant drilling - drilling oil from angles near the border from Iraqi territory. The Iraqi economy had been cripped by the war with Iran.

The Kuwati's were drilling from Iraqi land as they had given Iraq over 10 billion dollors in aid to fight the war with Iran. When they asked for it back, Saddam either flat out refused or did not have the money to give back.
Chico Santana
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 174/509
EXP: 762659
For next: 3550

Since: 2.7.02
From: Jaaaaamacia Mon, No Problem.

Since last post: 3969 days
Last activity: 3967 days
#20 Posted on 29.3.03 1415.56
Reposted on: 29.3.10 1420.31
    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    But I don't think it's right that our troops are putting their lives in danger so that rich people can get richer, and we can get gas a little cheaper.

    I honestly hope that when this is all said and done, that the Iraqi people have a decent chance at living prosperously under a decent leader. I'm just not terribly optimistic about it happening. We were fully behind Saddam until we decided he wasn't useful any more... what's stopping us from propping up another dictator who, say, is willing to sell us Osama Bin Laden's location?



I don't like the idea that Americas sons and daughters have to go and die in another land because there is oil and not because we want to help. If that's the way though,I wish every dictator had some source of value that we wanted. The U.N. is great in theory, but not in action(and everyone is to blame). I would love(and want) that the stonger military countries, and the wealthy ones would go destroy dictators. There is no reason that people in Africa have to live under tyrannical warlords while the more powerful countries wax poetic about how they do things right(USA, Russia, France..etc. etc.).

If I owned a media company I would make up stories about Africa being rich in oil so the fucking U.N. would pay attention. America has done alot of bad things in the past(because of cold war fears and money), but we are the greatest country in the world(and have done alot of good). With the spread of Information it will be hard to cover up the things that our goverment does, because word travels faster around the world with newer technology. It is up to us that our country won't have a hand in puppet government and that we vote against the ones(right-wing,left-wing) that use their positions for wrong(taking money from lobbyist). Dispense with the grandstanders because we won't have our government to blame, we'll have ourselves.

(edited by Chico Santana on 29.3.03 1218)
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: A timely quote from Dr. Martin Luther...
Next thread: Recall Gov. Davis
Previous thread: Hussein an Honorary Michigander
(1729 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - HaliburtonRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.23 seconds.