Our European Allies

[j07950]

You're probably going to reject this but I've heard of it in documentaries on TV in the UK a few times:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6288

 

[dilloduck]

You're probably going to reject this but I've heard of it in documentaries on TV in the UK a few times:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6288

And where does it say we went to war so Cheney could make money?

 

[j07950]

And where does it say we went to war so Cheney could make money?

You're not going to find that anywhere because you can't say that and not get sued...you know that.
According to Molly Ivins of the salt lake tribune:

Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein.
At least Halliburton was not selling luxury cars to the Baathist elite. Halliburton, the oilfield equipment company, merely kept Saddam Hussein's oil fields pumping, the only thing that allowed the s.o.b. to stay in power. Halliburton cleverly ran its business with Saddam through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, in order to avoid the sanctions.
Unlike the Germans, the French and the Russians, Halliburton was not punished by the Bush administration for dealing with the dictator. Instead, it got the largest reconstruction contract given by this administration, with an estimated value between $5 billion and $15 billion. And the company got the contract without competitive bidding

 

[j07950]

Halliburton is probably not the only company that can get the job done in Iraq. Because Halliburton was given the opportunity without granting other companies to bid on Iraq reconstruction, it's tough to know for sure. Why the favoritism? Some have suggested a personal profit motivation on the part of the vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation worth $150,000 a year. He retains Halliburton stock options worth more than $18 million.

http://subvatican.com/democrat/halliburton.html

 

[j07950]

I bet that's bull shit and doesn't explain why halliburton got the contracts right?

 

[no1tovote4]

You're not going to find that anywhere because you can't say that and not get sued...you know that.
According to Molly Ivins of the salt lake tribune:

Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein.
At least Halliburton was not selling luxury cars to the Baathist elite. Halliburton, the oilfield equipment company, merely kept Saddam Hussein's oil fields pumping, the only thing that allowed the s.o.b. to stay in power. Halliburton cleverly ran its business with Saddam through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, in order to avoid the sanctions.
Unlike the Germans, the French and the Russians, Halliburton was not punished by the Bush administration for dealing with the dictator. Instead, it got the largest reconstruction contract given by this administration, with an estimated value between $5 billion and $15 billion. And the company got the contract without competitive bidding

Molly Ivins is a left-wing hack and has always been. Lately she has become particularly screeching but that doesn't make her right or even get close to evidence. She writes an opinion column and skews facts in order to "make her point". It is like giving a Rush Limbaugh quote and saying it is fact, it isn't, it is an opinion.

I can opine all day! Will you quote me as stating fact?

 

[no1tovote4]

I bet that's bull shit and doesn't explain why halliburton got the contracts right?

Yep. You quote an opinion column as fact, and Molly Ivins to boot!

LOL. :rotflmao:

 

[j07950]

Ok so what about:
Halliburton is probably not the only company that can get the job done in Iraq. Because Halliburton was given the opportunity without granting other companies to bid on Iraq reconstruction, it's tough to know for sure. Why the favoritism? Some have suggested a personal profit motivation on the part of the vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation worth $150,000 a year. He retains Halliburton stock options worth more than $18 million.

http://subvatican.com/democrat/halliburton.html

 

[dilloduck]

You're not going to find that anywhere because you can't say that and not get sued...you know that.
According to Molly Ivins of the salt lake tribune:

Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein.
At least Halliburton was not selling luxury cars to the Baathist elite. Halliburton, the oilfield equipment company, merely kept Saddam Hussein's oil fields pumping, the only thing that allowed the s.o.b. to stay in power. Halliburton cleverly ran its business with Saddam through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, in order to avoid the sanctions.
Unlike the Germans, the French and the Russians, Halliburton was not punished by the Bush administration for dealing with the dictator. Instead, it got the largest reconstruction contract given by this administration, with an estimated value between $5 billion and $15 billion. And the company got the contract without competitive bidding

LOL nice try----so we are supposed to read between the lines of an article written by a rabid liberal and ASSUME what you claim is true?? Halliburton issue has been discussed a million times here---do some research becuase you point (that you can't even prove) has been refuted in numereous ways. They also have had employees killed while working in Iraq and other contractors have simply quit because it was too dangerous. If Hallibuton makes a profit helping in Iraq--good for them---no one else will do it and most CAN"T do it. No one is being fooled here but you.

 

[no1tovote4]

I bet that's bull shit and doesn't explain why halliburton got the contracts right?

There are one or two European companies, but they are in Germany and France. When you exlude those you get only one that can do what Halliburton does with the experience necessary and the ability combined with the resources.

Since the US was unwilling to let countries that would not help profit from the sacrifice of those who did I can definitely see why Halliburton got the contract.

 

[no1tovote4]

Ok so what about:
Halliburton is probably not the only company that can get the job done in Iraq. Because Halliburton was given the opportunity without granting other companies to bid on Iraq reconstruction, it's tough to know for sure. Why the favoritism? Some have suggested a personal profit motivation on the part of the vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation worth $150,000 a year. He retains Halliburton stock options worth more than $18 million.

http://subvatican.com/democrat/halliburton.html

I already did. See my previous post.

 

[CSM]

Thats fair, but the stats still stand for themselves...

Regarding the statistics....The premise is that the statistics show "excess mortality" based on the fact that mortality rates from a "reasonably well run country" would be much lower. Indeed, the author, in other articles, shows that mortality rates for modern nations (specifically North America and Europe) are much lower. I have no argument with that

Where I take issue is the author tries to portray "excess mortality" as soley the US's fault. I should mention that prior to recent events in Iraq, the author used similar statistics and the idea of "excess mortality" to blame Australia for the issues in Indonesia. The author also used the same tactic regarding the UK and India.

The point I am trying to make here and the reason I reject the article (and past articles) is that the author has ignored the very premise on which the statistics are presented....a reasonably well run country as compared to what? If we use the US, Australia and European nations as a baseline, it seems to me that the statistics support the idea that democratic modern nations have lower mortality rates than Third world countries with other forms of government....In other words, I disagree with the conclusion the author reaches and not the statistics per say.

You should also know that the history of the aforementioned author shows the individual to be a political activist with much anti American, anti-Semite, and in some cases, anti European leanings. The author is VERY pro-Muslim as well.

 

[j07950]

Sen. Frank Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.

How do you knwo it's the only company abale to do it since there was no bid for the job. You're just assuming this.

 

[j07950]

Regarding the statistics....The premise is that the statistics show "excess mortality" based on the fact that mortality rates from a "reasonably well run country" would be much lower. Indeed, the author, in other articles, shows that mortality rates for modern nations (specifically North America and Europe) are much lower. I have no argument with that

Where I take issue is the author tries to portray "excess mortality" as soley the US's fault. I should mention that prior to recent events in Iraq, the author used similar statistics and the idea of "excess mortality" to blame Australia for the issues in Indonesia. The author also used the same tactic regarding the UK and India.

The point I am trying to make here and the reason I reject the article (and past articles) is that the author has ignored the very premise on which the statistics are presented....a reasonably well run country as compared to what? If we use the US, Australia and European nations as a baseline, it seems to me that the statistics support the idea that democratic modern nations have lower mortality rates than Third world countries with other forms of government....In other words, I disagree with the conclusion the author reaches and not the statistics per say.

You should also know that the history of the aforementioned author shows the individual to be a political activist with much anti American, anti-Semite, and in some cases, anti European leanings. The author is VERY pro-Muslim as well.

That's faire...I was only interested in the money figures...

 

[j07950]

Really enjoyed the discussion but I've got work to do guys...I'll be back...got essays for next monday...

 

[no1tovote4]

Sen. Frank Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.

How do you knwo it's the only company abale to do it since there was no bid for the job. You're just assuming this.

Name even one that had the experience in the area and resources to do the job that isn't a French or German company and then we can talk about it. It will become clear to you that it was the only viable option for the US if they were planning on excluding companies from those countries.

Really enjoyed the discussion but I've got work to do guys...I'll be back...got essays for next monday...

Goodbye.

 

[Johnney]

Because we don't do war for nothing, we're in an age when wars have done so much damage that we think it is wiser to try and find alternatives, obviously you go dive head first into it whenever possible.

kind of sounds like you dont go to war for nothing. to hell with other countries as long as frogville makes out for the better

 

[Johnney]

I didn't want to learn another language because I didn't need to...you are absolutely correect...so what?

exactly, it will be a cold day in hell before i travel outside the US again

 

[Said1]

How do you knwo it's the only company abale to do it since there was no bid for the job. You're just assuming this.

What difference does it make to you? If know one else bid, what's all the hubub Bub?

 

[freeandfun1]

you people think the rest of the world is going to make the effort to learn english and follow you.

We sure do, because they are!

France is pissed cuz French is no longer the world's banking language. I remember when all Letter's of Credit were in French, but no longer.

You lose cuz the French suck! Now go suck on a tailpipe someplace. You are annoying.