Ok, political thought..only read if interested

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
this is from the New Yorker:..
I've said it about a trillion times... we should have invaded Iraq the first time they shot at one of our pilots over the No Fly Zone.
If there were in fact plans to invade Iraq early on so what? Doesn't the military routinely identify hotspots and plan for possible conflict?
Let's not forget; President Clinton bombed Iraq's "Nuclear, chemical and biological" facilities in 1998. Using that intel plans should have been drawn up for an attack.

 

[windmill]

How does that make them money?
Bonuses, promotions, job transfers and such awarded. I mean c'mon, they got the EXCLUSIVE contract to extract oil from Iraq. There are numerous studies showing Iraq's oil is the easiest and cheapest to get with many large oil pockets just below the surface. So they get it cheap and sell it with a massive profit.

 

[seasalt101]

halliburton is the number 1 company in the world for doing what they do no other company had the rescources to do it and it's iraq's oil not ours...tobin

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by windmill
Bonuses, promotions, job transfers and such awarded. I mean c'mon, they got the EXCLUSIVE contract to extract oil from Iraq. There are numerous studies showing Iraq's oil is the easiest and cheapest to get with many large oil pockets just below the surface. So they get it cheap and sell it with a massive profit.

Again...another talking point with no facts to back it up. Haliburton rebuilt and set up emergency procedures for the oil wells.....nothing more. The only country/entity collecting revenue from Iraq's oil is Iraq....or do you really think the Iraqi government and military is funded and supported by their sale of glass?
Also, name one other company that does what Haliburton does? You guys complain that Haliburton got the contract due to ties and didn't have to bid on it. OK, show me another company with resources and funds available to do a job this size. Haliburton has received every contract of this ilk since the early 1990's.

 

[windmill]

So the companies that harvet Iraq's oil make no profit ?
That sure is generous of them. Giving all that money back into the community.
I honestly don't know what the Iraqi government is funded by, but my first guess would be mostly by the American people. I'm sure there are other sources like oil sales and......well......I don't know what else Iraq sells. Maybe burkhas or qurans, who knows, but it certainly isn't significant enough to support a democratic government.
Just because it's supposed to be the only company capable of harvesting Iraq's oil - which is B.S. - doesn't make it politically or corporately responsible. You can't honestly expect me to believe that other less Bush friendly companies couldn't harvest some of Iraq's oil?

 

[seasalt101]

can you name 1 company with the rescources of halliburton, just to clue you in bj services is # 2 in the world and they are not even close...tobin

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Employees of Haliburton have a set pay scale including the CEO. So no matter if Haliburton makes more money due to the contracts they received no other company could do, Their "Buddies" aren't getting a higher salary"...so try again.
This is really a pretty ridiculous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that the billions of dollars worth of profit that Halliburton is making off this war is not benefiting them?

Inasmuch as you want everyone to take the time to "research" just to make a point, sometimes logic and common sense can prevail. Besides, as shown above with the article provided by Jmerk, those opposing will then simply challenge the source.

 

[windmill]

No. But does that take away the fact other companies could at the least help?
This isn't even the point anyways. Halliburton is huge, so what. That doesn't mean it's o.k. to toss political and corporate responsibility out the window.
Moving on. I've thrown out a few of my comments and speculations to encourage other angles of thought. That was my only intention, not argue why politicians shouldn't allow their corporate buddies special privelages or inside information.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by windmill
No. But does that take away the fact other companies could at the least help?
This isn't even the point anyways. Halliburton is huge, so what. That doesn't mean it's o.k. to toss political and corporate responsibility out the window.
Moving on. I've thrown out a few of my comments and speculations to encourage other angles of thought. That was my only intention, not argue why politicians shouldn't allow their corporate buddies special privelages or inside information.
A norwegian company is getting ready (if they aren't now) to start pumping oil for the Iraqis there.
Is this another one of Bush's scheme's to get his texas oil buddies rich? My point, Haliburton is the ONLY company with the resources and size to have taken on a project like this in the beginning. Show me another..And now certain portions are being handed over to other international corporations from other countries.
You sound like you are suggesting any company that took over the rebuilding of Iraqs infrastructure shouldn't profit in some form...that is retarded....
We had 12 different reason's for removing Sadaam...need they be listed again? Apparently you are fine with Iraq shooting at our pilots un provoked for 1`2 years...yet you claim to care about the troops so much.......

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
This is really a pretty ridiculous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that the billions of dollars worth of profit that Halliburton is making off this war is not benefiting them?

Inasmuch as you want everyone to take the time to "research" just to make a point, sometimes logic and common sense can prevail. Besides, as shown above with the article provided by Jmerk, those opposing will then simply challenge the source.

Show me where it states billions is their profit....You are making ASSumptions based off the cotrat being worth 7 billion dollars....but what was their cost and continues to be their cost to operate in Iraq?

 

[darthtang aw]

From the article in question"In early March, 2003, the Army quietly awarded Halliburton a contract to execute those plans."
NOT the white house or congress, but the ARMY gave them the all clear to put their plans in motion prior to the invasion.

 

[seasalt101]

well put darthtang i see we are on the same page but your facts are a lot tidier mine are all scrambled...tobin

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Show me where it states billions is their profit....You are making ASSumptions based off the cotrat being worth 7 billion dollars....but what was their cost and continues to be their cost to operate in Iraq?
Again, sometimes logic and common sense can be used here. It's funny that you won't acknowledge that Halliburton is gaining a benefit / profit without actually seeing their financial books. Talk about blind faith...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
...Inasmuch as you want everyone to take the time to "research" just to make a point, sometimes logic and common sense can prevail. .....
crimzy, you want us to believe President Bush invaded Iraq to make his buddies' money, then state that logic and common sense need to prevail? That's hardly fair...
Hailburton did a job no one else could do. They made money doing it... seems fair to me.
If some of you would follow the news in Iraq you'd know that dividing up the money from oil sales is a major sticking point right now in the Iraqi congress.
We're not pumping and selling their oil.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Again, sometimes logic and common sense can be used here. It's funny that you won't acknowledge that Halliburton is gaining a benefit / profit without actually seeing their financial books. Talk about blind faith...
Show me where I said Haliburton wasn't making a profit? That would be stupid, they are after all a business and businesses need to make money to continue. I just question the "they are making billions" comment.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Show me where I said Haliburton wasn't making a profit? That would be stupid, they are after all a business and businesses need to make money to continue. I just question the "they are making billions" comment.
You know what? They probably should be making billions. Look at how much construction companies charge to build a stretch of highway in the USA. Now, I'm pretty sure rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure admist car bombs, IEDs, saboteurs, kidnappers, etc. is more difficult. Not to mention difficulty of getting supplies shipped in and transported, housing employees, etc.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
crimzy, you want us to believe President Bush invaded Iraq to make his buddies' money, then state that logic and common sense need to prevail? That's hardly fair...
Hailburton did a job no one else could do. They made money doing it... seems fair to me.
If some of you would follow the news in Iraq you'd know that dividing up the money from oil sales is a major sticking point right now in the Iraqi congress.
We're not pumping and selling their oil.
I understand this point and I've never suggested that the financial benefit to the Bush and Cheney entourage was the only reason to invade Iraq. I actually don't think this was the prominent reason to invade, just a nice little benefit therefrom. However, I find it silly to deny that there is a benefit gained.
As I stated before, I think this war has a lot more to do with the legacy that Bush Jr. is trying to create. This war is very personal to him and is largely controlled by ego. George Bush Jr. is a cowboy and somewhat childlike. He got smacked by 9/11 and couldn't bring those responsible to justice so he had to create this mythical "war on terror". All the while he takes a different approach regarding Iran, who actually is capable of building nukes, and refers to the Saudi royal family as "his" family. (Actually if anything, he is theirs since they bought him... not the other way around).
Forget that he declared an end to the war four years ago yet we are still seeing terrorist attacks throughout the world. I also love the sophisticated "terror alert", which has been at an orange or red level everyday since the war began. But at the end of all of this, no matter how badly it ends for our troops, Bush will declare himself the courageous victor because he removed Saddam from power. And from the opinions expressed in this discussion, unfortunately it seems that a lot of people will believe him... again.

 

[crimzy]

I should add that this is JMO but that's probably apparent.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
I understand this point and I've never suggested that the financial benefit to the Bush and Cheney entourage was the only reason to invade Iraq. I actually don't think this was the prominent reason to invade, just a nice little benefit therefrom. However, I find it silly to deny that there is a benefit gained.
As I stated before, I think this war has a lot more to do with the legacy that Bush Jr. is trying to create. This war is very personal to him and is largely controlled by ego. George Bush Jr. is a cowboy and somewhat childlike. He got smacked by 9/11 and couldn't bring those responsible to justice so he had to create this mythical "war on terror". All the while he takes a different approach regarding Iran, who actually is capable of building nukes, and refers to the Saudi royal family as "his" family. (Actually if anything, he is theirs since they bought him... not the other way around).
Forget that he declared an end to the war four years ago yet we are still seeing terrorist attacks throughout the world. I also love the sophisticated "terror alert", which has been at an orange or red level everyday since the war began. But at the end of all of this, no matter how badly it ends for our troops, Bush will declare himself the courageous victor because he removed Saddam from power. And from the opinions expressed in this discussion, unfortunately it seems that a lot of people will believe him... again.

I won't deny this war effort has been mis handled...We should have more troops on the ground...right now we have approximately 200,000 soldiers in other countries that don't need them. More people on the ground we could put a stop to this problem real quick...but Like Vietnam it is to political and micro managed....I don't think it is as bad as a lot of people believe based off of what I hear from certain troops on the ground. However it could be better....

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
........ He got smacked by 9/11 and couldn't bring those responsible to justice so he had to create this mythical "war on terror". ...
I really have nothing more to say to you on this subject. Clearly you and I live in different realities and no amount of conversation will ever make them collide.
Either I have seriously drunk the Kool Aid, or you have.