:-/
Old news. Do a search, I believe phil brought this up first. (unless there is some new news at the bottom, but i didn’t wanna read 5 pages of old stuff for a chance of seeing new stuff).
THE SIZE and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than previously disclosed
This is much bigger than was previously believed.
It seems that Dicky boy has decided to help out some good friends. What I don’t understand is that how people know this and yet nothing is being done about it. Hello, Democrats, are you awake? It is so frustrating that a President who sleeps with his intern has all this controversy surrounding him yet obviously corrupt Dick Cheney just does what ever he pleases without question. ‘Weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi freedom… or just some more money for some food pals, whatever, let’s go to war!’
The reason is, this is nothing new, and I am really not surprised or worried. An election in the US costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and a lot of the funding comes from private parties such as Halliburton, Enron, USX, etc.
Everybody from the Congressman to the Senators and even the President have substantial portions of their election campaigns funded by companies 
Clinton lied under oath…that’s the real crime. I could care less what he actually did. There are several threads in this forum that deal more about Clinton and his choices.
EDIT: Even the Democrats receive substantial funding from 3rd parties. I would guess organizations like the UAW and related unions…not sure.
Cheers!
Kirupa :ub:
True enough that they all need to get money from somewhere for their campaigns… but I would say this is a little bit different. Wanting to show your thanks for a company that gave you money is understandable; however this is a pretty big thanks that has other factors intertwined with it to make it serious. I was against the war in Iraq, but I did not want to believe that it was all about the oil, but how can I be sure about that now? No weapons, the “liberty” being brought the the Iraqis is not the primary concern or they would have power, and Baghdad would be in a much better situation. Taking all of that into account and seeing that an Oil company is getting 1.7 billion has to make you wonder. It is only made worse by the fact that Cheney used to be the head of Halliburton, it’s like maybe Halliburton said “We’ll back fund your campaign if you invade Iraq and give us the rights and the money to go in there and start getting our hands on their oil.” I can’t say that is what happened and I don’t want to believe that, but this is truley shady.
Clinton did lie under oath, but so do half the people who ever go under oath. I know that’s a fallacy… Anyway Bush was lying about something much more serious when he said he knew Iraq had weapons of mass distruction, and I’m sure he would have lied under oath about it, but he had no reason to. Also who cares if it was under oath or not under oath, a lie to the people of your country; to the people of the world, is bad whether you swore on the bible or not.
In <b>my</b> opinion of course.
Clinto lied under oath about a blow job, lets use common sence; his lying, while wrong, did not result in the deaths of thousands of people and something that costs 4 billion a day!
1). Lepiano please name for me 2 other companies that would be able to do the work.
2). Please state how these companies would be better at the job than haliburton.
Why would it have to be companies? That is the first major flaw right there, if the government is not able to finish the job, then don’t start it! They can afford to spend billions and billions on military, but they can not afford to help the country they just toppled? If not, then they should have allowed more UN intervention, allow the UN to move in more and help rebuild, but no, Bush has some problem with his ego, if the UN didn’t side with him at first, why should he let them do stuff now? Canada would send peace keepers in like that, there is one expense lifted… but the United States doesn’t want that.
The bottom line is this basically goes against everything the government was saying at the start of this war… a) it’s not about oil, and b) to prove that the Iraqis will get control of their oil. Halliburton doesn’t sound like an Iraqi name to me, but I could be wrong.
And <b>any</b> two companies would be better, as long as they are not involved in oil. The reason they would be better is because they would not be profiting off what is supposed to become Iraq’s biggest economic resource, thus taking away money from the Iraqis.
And please, call me Leone, Lepiano sounds so formal.
*Originally posted by NaliWarCow *
**1). Lepiano please name for me 2 other companies that would be able to do the work.
2). Please state how these companies would be better at the job than haliburton. **
1)Shell, Exxon, here a third Chevron…
- why would they be worse?
-
Shell, Exxon, and Chevron aren’t primarily into the oil services, repair, and maintenance business. They are, for the most part, large scale traders and excavators of oil. Companies like Schlumberger are capable, and they too get a good deal of contracts. Halliburton is one of the big fishes though. Halliburton is not going to be selling the oil in a gas station - they merely ensure the refiniries are operating and up to standards so Shell, Exxon, and Chevron can get it to us.
-
They would be worse because they don’t have the experience in doing large scale maintenance of oil fields.
Leone, the US government does not own any large company capable of doing what companies like Halliburton can do. There really is no such thing as a public sector industry in the US, and almost 95% of all the economy are controlled by private companies. The government has no choice but to go with private companies - which is the way it should be (see Edit below.)
Why should the US let the UN in? The US started this war, they won the war for the most part, and they stand to reap the benefits over the long run. The strategic position the US gains through Iraq in the Middle East is huge! Why waste it over a group of squabbling countries who take petty diplomacy to the edge. The touchy-feely-let’s-all-have-a-group-hug-we-all-agree-that-global-warming-is-bad-world that the UN sees is over. There are real issues and real problems that, as clearly seen, the UN can’t or will be able to enforce or prevent. There is another thread in Ordered where the UN is discussed.
There is now a small iraqi police force, and the Iraqis will get control shortly (in a few years) as their situtation improves. The US is not going to stay there in the long run. This will probably be similar to Japan and the 1940s - we will stay there long enough to help rebuild and leave. The problem earlier in Iraq was that almost 100% of Iraq’s economy was controlled by a few people collectively known as…Saddam, Inc. =)
When Saddam, Inc. was disbanded, all you had where the remains - a vast legion of unemployed, illiterate, and impoverished people. Basically, if you knew how to service an oil-well using state of the art technology, you were not going to be in Iraq…you were probably on a deck of cards or working in Saudi Arabia.
The government has claimed numerous times that the revenues from the oil would be used to rebuild Iraq. What else does Iraq have to offer? If the US was in there for just the oil, there is no need for us to still remain there and send troops to remote reaches of the country where they can potentially be killed. All it takes is a small group protecting the oil wells. There is no need for us to try to fix their water treatment facilities, sewage systems, etc. The question we should ask involves the larger picture far bigger than the short-term losses, “Will the Iraqis be better of 5 years from now under the US or Saddam?”
War isn’t a point and click affair where results are imminent in a couple of days. It takes time - several years to see results :beam:
EDIT: Private companies will almost always do a better job at doing tasks than the government ever will. Something about accountability, profit, and competition forces them to do a better job. Inefficient companies die relatively quickly, inefficient government departments linger on forever…
EDIT2: RB, it’s 4 billion a month. For the most part, I know I will get flak for this, the US can afford it. When one has a 10 trillion dollar economy that is still growing at a relatively slow rate of about 2-3%, 4 billion is pocket change. The debt can be paid off if the government wants to. Money supply is controlled by the government, and they can choose to print 15+ trillion dollar bills and pay it off immediately. Sure you will have inflation, but obviously an external debt and deficits are more important. I don’t really see a problem with deficits. Interest rates are still low, and last time I checked, banks haven’t sent people back because all the money is currently loaned to the government.
Yeah - I’m sure most of that will happen in due time. Once the military problem dies down, a host of US companies would be interested in doing business there. Once the telephone and power infrastructure gets up, there will be educational facilities.
The potential is great, and for that reason, the US should go it alone. I do not want ANY future history books in Europe, Asia, or North America (with the exception of the US) to say that they had a large role in helping cause the soon-to-be-found prosperity in Iraq.
I can’t believe I’m actually reading this! Granted both Kirupa and Phil made some good points that I don’t know enough about economics to really debate, I can’t believe what you have been saying about the UN their level of involvment! What you are saying is the most arrogant, greedy, self-centered stance I have ever heard! Thinking of what will be in the history books, wanting to ensure all the glory goes to the United States as opposed to worrying about getting the situation in Iraq better! Are you serious about that? Do you think that up here in Canada we’re like “Well now the hard part is done, the fighting is done, so lets go get some glory.”? Maybe you guys don’t know it exists, but there is such thing as genuine good will, the desire to help people in need. Between 1991 and 1996 Canada was involved in starting up 26 news peacekeeping missions! That is for more than there had been in total since after world war 2! Do you seriously think at this point we are focused on how to gain from this? Do you ever hear about Canada’s involvment in these places? I rarely do and I live here. We feel obligated to help this world become a better place, we do not feel that we need to gain international fame as a country that helped Iraq become what it might be in the future.
The fact that you think that reflects on the United States, it reflects that you are always in things for the benefit to your country. You said that the United States alone deserves to gain from this war! The United States claimed to be going in for the interests of the Iraqi people and the safety of the international community, I didn’t hear anything about economic benefits coming from the mouth of George Bush. I am not naive enough to have thought that there wouldn’t be a economic gain for the States, but I also hoped that maybe you would be big enough to put the wellbeing of the Iraqi citizens before the growth of your RSVPs.
Why should the UN be let in if the US started this war? You say that the US should finish this war! WELL THEY HAVE PROVEN THEY CAN’T by the fact that they have to rely on the private sector, by the fact that everyday there is a new bombing, new fighting, new mosque being destroyed! This aint no Japan! Japan was not a country full of religious factions that have been warring for centuries, Japan is an island, not a country in the middle of the most unstable place in the world! Ya, we’ll let you do the job, like you did in Somalia, Vietnam, Korea… You guys can take all the credit for that in your history books.
While the UN does have many flaws, many of them are due atleast in part to the US. You can’t have a community where one member is 90 times more powerful than some other countries, 90 times less likely to care. Kyoto, the international landmines treaty, these are some things the US has not signed, so the US would have to qualify as one of the bickering countries aswell… or maybe just negligent. I can tell you one thing, the United Nations will never work if the US only listens to them when they please, it’s like having a student that doesn’t listen to the teacher unless it wants to, the class will never work. I’m sure both of you know that the League of Nations was the pre-second world war version of the UN… but it failed, why? Because the US was not a member. As it stands right now, the US might as well not be a member of the UN, and that is one big reason why it is failing.
As for Iraq lacking the people to work in the oil industry, do you not think that if the situation was good enough in Iraq, maybe some Iraqis would return to their country from places like Saudi Arabia?
Maybe I’m being unfair, does CNN really cover what’s going on in Iraq? When I watch it i hear of “An Iraqi family that has named their new child after George Bush in thanks.” When I watch any other news station from around the world I hear “bombing of mosque deepens Iraq crisis.”
I thought of a reason why you might be afraid of other countries stealing your glory… That’s what you would do isn’t it? I mean after all, the US didn’t join either of the world wars at the begining, I mean heck, what did the rest of the world matter? But then both times, the US, the knight in shinning armour came in and saved the day. You do love your Disney movies don’t you? Who makes the most world war one and two movies now? The US, always the heros, what about the Aussies and the Scotts? What about the English who were being bombed everyday? The French? They are called sissies by the US, but living beside the Germans is much different than living across and ocean.
No I see it now, you guys are suffereing from paranoia, the fact that for so long you have been able to be the worlds heros, the brave soldiers, the only one’s losing your kids, you can’t let some other country take that glory. I mourn the death of US and British soldiers in Iraq, I also mourn the death of Iraqi civilians, I also mourn the dead Canadians who were bombed by a US pilot in Afghanistan, the pilot was let off the hook…
The US is not the only country that bleeds, American soldiers are not the only ones who die.
P.S. sorry if I went overboad, well I know I did, the truth is I am a United States citizen, my dad was born there, some of my family lives there, but I’m sorry, someone had to say it.
Like I mentioned earlier, the War is over, but winning the peace will take a few years. The way I see it, other countries had a chance to help in the removal of Saddam and share in the rebuilding. The US didn’t need help then, and they don’t really need help now. From my point of view, Iraq undermined the UN and all member countries by going against every UN resolution condemning it. If anything, the US showed that if the UN won’t enforce it’s UN resolutions, the US, which you credit as being an integral member to the survival of any multicountry party, has to go it alone. If Canada, France, Germany, etc. were so interested in doing good, they should never have agreed to signing un-enforceable UN resolutions.
The US and the UK deserve to gain from this war because ONLY the US and the UK and a few other countries sent troops with the US carrying a large portion of the costs. Did any other countries help us? NO! The US may be profit oriented (the capitalist dream), but we are also FAIR. Fair does not mean giving credit or giving an award to countries who did what most armchair generals on TV do - sit on the sidelines and give commentaries.
The history books I studied in school show that the US did struggle and for the most part lose in Vietnam, etc. There is a thread on Kyoto and how unfair it is to the world when some of the biggest polluters - India and China, do not have to sign it. Search for Kyoto on Ordered and you’ll see why I and a few others agree to not having signed Kyoto. Like I mentioned, the UN is too far removed from the lives of ordinary people - yeah Kyoto is good if you ignore the millions who will lose their jobs to countries such as India and China because Kyoto doesn’t have to apply to them.
About people coming back to Iraq, yeah they will after the power is restored and general stability returns. You seem to be of the notion that everything should happen immediately. Like I mentioned in a previous thread, it takes time for general stability to return. In the meantime, US and UK companies are more than competent enough to handle the temporary backlogs. Many Iraqi nationals have returned for participation in the governmental jobs and offices.
Maybe I’m being unfair, does CNN really cover what’s going on in Iraq? When I watch it i hear of “An Iraqi family that has named their new child after George Bush in thanks.”
Now, why do you find it difficult to believe that? Is it because that the reality of what is actually going on contradicts everything you are told to believe? Subscribing to one point of view is quite dangerous in my opinion.
What makes the US great is that it changes and evolves to suit new times. We were isolationist earlier in our history, but realized that letting the world go down the tubes wasn’t going to be of benefit to anyone. The US could have decided to NOT get involved in World War II or World War I, but we did. The country wasn’t exactly for going to war in Europe, but we did anyway. There were numerous times when the country indirectly helped the UK by sending munitions, food, and even limited protection for ships.
Again, the US always goes to the private sector. If you even barely understand the US economic structure, you should understand that the government does NOT own any oil service industries. Not all countries have to be socialistic with state-controlled medias, etc. after all. Who do you think the US should have used to re-build the oil refineries? In the US there is the Private Sector and …{cricket noises}…so yeah, I’m glad the US Gov employed the Private Sector instead of crickets 
Kirupa you also forgot to mention that Haliburton already did buisness in Iraq, they already have some experience. :sure:
I agree with Leone, yes america is a great country, and bla bla bla…
but still, Just because its good for the US dosent mean we should do it! We can invade Mexico, nuke a few places of high population concentration, and inslave the rest! Hey free labor and tons of guiny pigs!
There is such thing as human decensny.
As for Saddam, I agree with phil that Saddam did get great coaching from other countries, you just forgot to mention the USA.
But I dont think he has anything, if with the best military, the best surveillance equipment, the best inteligence community, couldnt find NOTHING, why would we find it now. Sounds like a big waste of 30 billion dollars worth of Spy equimpent. And if Saddam DID have them, why didnt he use it in the combat. It dosent take a genuis to know that Iraq would not stand toe to toe with USA, so naturaly they would fall back, blend in and start a geurilla war.
But back to what Leon said: We live in a small world, we cant go around just waging wars on anything that moves. And shouldnt we wage the wars one at a time?
Yes RB - but again, in my childhood goal to become a broken record, I have to say again that the times have changed. The enemy is no longer within one country - it’s like a virus that can’t be destroyed by giving a shot in Point A and hoping the antibody provides the cure for the whole body.
The war on terrorism requires numerous painful shots in every part of the body that has these infectious, jumping over ropes people known as terrorists. The soreness after some of these shots will take a few years to subside…consider it the painful, third dose of a Hepatitus B shot that some tyrannical college requires incoming students to take.
Yeah, no doubt the US provided arms and tactical support to Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 80’s. Both those countries learned from some of the sharpest minds the US, Russia, China, etc. would have had. Just another problem in trying to provide “goodwill” to some 3rd world country 
I will have a reply tomorrow… I just spent about an hour writing a reply and then it got deleted, and now it’s too late to rewrite all of it… But I will say now that I am sorry, because I went too far in my last message, and I acted childish (well I am technically still a child). And Phil, I did not mean you personally, I used ‘you’ in referance to the United States… so I want you to know I am not judging you. Also I love the United States and most of what it stands for, but I just think (as with all countires) the US has some big flaws that are often overlooked…
Much, much more tomorrow
I disagree Kir. Things have not changed, it seems that you think terrorism was just invented, its wasnt, terrorism is an old tactic.
Times have changed, but things remain the same.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn’t know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation’s most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion - “a sign from God,” he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Take a wild guess who said this…
See my point?
Well, I think the times have changed for the US and most UN nations. There has been terrorist violence all throughout the world for the better part of a century, but the UN has rarely intervened to prevent the bloodshed in, for example, India and Pakistan where anywhere from 20k - 60k people have died. Another example would be the Khmer in Cambodia where hundreds of thousands may have fallen during a brutal regime.
When countries come to the brink of solving the problem, the UN tries to send an envoy to “mediate.” That old method of, “let’s let those countries that don’t have any direct effect on us bleed” does not work after 9/11. The country this time was not some remote Asian country, but it was the actual USA. The UN simply couldn’t commit itself to a task - it forgot what it meant to go out of its way to help end a potential threat.
Leone, I usually type all my messages here in Notepad and save periodically so the text doesn’t get deleted because of a computer error. Nothing is more annoying than writing a thoughtful response and losing it due to a technical glitch.
Rb, I really have no idea who said that.
EDIT: Just did a google search - Hitler? The only flaw in that is that Hitler killed people for their simple religious affiliation among other things. Hitler did not stay back to help repair the effects of the War. If Hitler wanted to invade Poland for oil, he would simply have gotten the oil, lined up everybody who wasn’t important, and had them shot by the army.
*Originally posted by kirupa *
**Well, I think the times have changed for the US and most UN nations. There has been terrorist violence all throughout the world for the better part of a century, but the UN has rarely intervened to prevent the bloodshed in, for example, India and Pakistan where anywhere from 20k - 60k people have died. Another example would be the Khmer in Cambodia where hundreds of thousands may have fallen during a brutal regime.
When countries come to the brink of solving the problem, the UN tries to send an envoy to “mediate.” That old method of, “let’s let those countries that don’t have any direct effect on us bleed” does not work after 9/11. The country this time was not some remote Asian country, but it was the actual USA. The UN simply couldn’t commit itself to a task - it forgot what it meant to go out of its way to help end a potential threat.
Leone, I usually type all my messages here in Notepad and save periodically so the text doesn’t get deleted because of a computer error. Nothing is more annoying than writing a thoughtful response and losing it due to a technical glitch.
Rb, I really have no idea who said that.
EDIT: Just did a google search - Hitler? The only flaw in that is that Hitler killed people for their simple religious affiliation among other things. Hitler did not stay back to help repair the effects of the War. If Hitler wanted to invade Poland for oil, he would simply have gotten the oil, lined up everybody who wasn’t important, and had them shot by the army. **
Okay, so do you see my point? Things have not changed, I mean; you said it yourself, there has been terrorism durring the better part of this Century. (India. Pakistan, Cambodia…etc…)
Why did you bring the UN and OIL up? I never said UN is slow to act or there is a war for oil. No, simply terrorism is old, and happened before 9/11. But before 9/11 the USA didnt pay much attention to it, (EVEN when they tried to bomb the world trade centers!!!)
About the quote, first of all: what does oil and Poland have to do with anything. Hitler said that, another great advocate of ‘preventative warfare’, he said that during the 1933 Richstag bombings. 1933, Terrorism is old.
