haliburton and the war

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#21 Postby mf_dolphin » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:31 pm

Wannabehippie
war profiteering is nothing new. it happens in every war. it is not the 2-5% profit that i oppose, it is the fact that Halliburton will not have to justify their costs, thereby giving them a blank check.


Where do you see that they don't have to justify costs? The contract calls for actual costs plus a small profit. Any "costs" submitted for payment are subject to scrutiny by the government. Your assumption that this gives them a license to steal is flat wrong. Look at the healthcare industry for an example. Many companies thought Medicare was also a license to steal. Many of those same folks are now servibg long jail sentances for fraud. Many private companies also issue no-bid contracts simply because it can be the most efficient way to get a specific job done. Your cry of outrage just isn't supported by any facts as of yet just speculation.
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#22 Postby Stephanie » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:35 pm

I did DJ. I still have that nagging doubt in my head about that deal. As you said in your discussion, it's technically business as usual in the Corporate bedrooms, which still doesn't make it right.
0 likes   

User avatar
Arizwx
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Coast,U.S.A.
Contact:

Rebuttal

#23 Postby Arizwx » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:37 pm

wannabehippie wrote:just because a war is on, does not mean my voice will be silenced when i see a wrong in my eyes being done by our government

i support our troops fully. i cheered when they went into afganistan to get Al Qada.
but if i see our president or vice president doing something wrong i will continue to speak out.

i backed up my statement of corporate greed and corruption with examples from Enron and verizon. there are thousands more examples.

the contract that Halliburton got was not just short term. it includes provisions to rebuild the infrastructure of the Iraqi oil fields. that could potentially take years, depending on the level of damage done.

i did not accuse cheney of being bloodthirsty. i said a company that he was once head of, received IMO a contract based on that relationship.

war profiteering is nothing new. it happens in every war. it is not the 2-5% profit that i oppose, it is the fact that Halliburton will not have to justify their costs, thereby giving them a blank check.


as i said before if i see a wrong, i am going to cry out, war or no war.

supporting our troops does not mean acting like sheep or turning a blind eye to potential wrong doings by our government. in fact during war time a more careful eye must be kept.

peace
david


David,
Your retort was somewhat improved,however..it contains the normal cry of the downtrodden liberal.Please.I am in no way trying to 'silence you',so kindly save that drivel for the steps of the Student Union at your local Tax Payer funded Community College.
I will also employ the very rules of engagement that I outlined for you in my previous remarks.That is to address your points and pursue avenues of logic from within.The caveat here though David,is to also look into your rheotoric and exhume the trash.This requires your practicing rigorous honesty.This is difficult in our society as a whole.I will not allow an 'en passe' as if I were a braindead Chess Match opponent.I will call a bad move before I see one,and vanquish it to facilitate an honest discussion.
Therefore,how then does Verizon's cash flow crunch fit into the scheme of Haliburton?It does not.If we employ honesty then,I would assume that your embittered opinion is that Corporations are greedy as a whole.I this true?If it is,I will not participate in this or any other discussion with you.It is ludicrous to debate a soley held 'Creed'.I cannot and will not.You have a right to hold such views,however,you seem much more intelligent than to be a Hard Line Lib Lemming.Don't allow that to silence you either.it works both ways.
War Profiteering has what?Existed for What?No.Do you understand the legalities of War Profiteering?It is a CRIME.I studied at length,while applying to the Naval Academy at Annapolis many years ago,the War of 1812.That was profiteering.Be careful the choice of insinuation you choose as a weapon.Profits during war time is NOT the same as the Lib Cry of 'Profiteering'.Make note of the gross distiction..you may find this on your Final Exam.
Also,make the distiction of Contractual OPTIONS for long term.Boeing also employs it as does Microsoft and most other Corps and companies that engage in biz with the US GOV.It LOCKS the price!Saving you and I money.This will also appear on your Final.
Last edited by Arizwx on Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

wannabehippie

#24 Postby wannabehippie » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:38 pm

from Lt. Col. Gene Pawlik.

said the corps had awarded a cost-plus contract (to halliburton), meaning that the company would be paid for its cost plus 2 percent to 5 percent.

nothing about "actual" cost, but what Halliburton submits as their "costs"


peace
david
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#25 Postby Stephanie » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:46 pm

DJ -

First of all, in everyone of your responses you discuss how Wannabe must be respectful when "engaging" in a debate with you, yet in the next sentence you don't hesitate to put him down! Also, who made you incharge of debates and discussions - RULES OF ENGAGEMENT?! - an outline? -.Class Dismissed?!Give me a break! You are the one here that's demeaning others and their opinions
0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#26 Postby mf_dolphin » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:58 pm

wannabehippie wrote:from Lt. Col. Gene Pawlik.

said the corps had awarded a cost-plus contract (to halliburton), meaning that the company would be paid for its cost plus 2 percent to 5 percent.

nothing about "actual" cost, but what Halliburton submits as their "costs"


peace
david


Again David, all costs submitted are subject to review and approval. This is no different than the Medicare system which is also on a cost reimbursement basis. These systems can be subject to fraud but you seem to imply that this is a given... Cost and "actual costs" are one in the same. Since the guiding document is the actual contract (which I would bet that none of us have read) and not the press briefing I suggest that we all leave this to the government oversight organizations to analyze. :D
0 likes   

User avatar
Arizwx
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Coast,U.S.A.
Contact:

My Remarks

#27 Postby Arizwx » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:58 pm

Stephanie wrote:DJ -

First of all, in everyone of your responses you discuss how Wannabe must be respectful when "engaging" in a debate with you, yet in the next sentence you don't hesitate to put him down! Also, who made you incharge of debates and discussions - RULES OF ENGAGEMENT?! - an outline? -.Class Dismissed?!Give me a break! You are the one here that's demeaning others and their opinions


Are not to be taken literally.I was having some fun with David and yes,I do disagree with him respectfully.
If I came across as anything but,I apologise.I did not put him down,nor would I.It is my style.
If I offend,by using humor and sarcasm,so be it.
Thank you for your honesty.You will recieve nothing less from me.
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#28 Postby Stephanie » Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:01 pm

My apologies if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

I've always known you for your honesty and intelligence - I wouldn't expect anything less! The conversations in this topic just threw me alittle! :wink:
0 likes   

User avatar
JQ Public
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Cary, NC

#29 Postby JQ Public » Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:53 pm

happy ending :lol: *ding*
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#30 Postby Stephanie » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:15 am

Yes it is! :D
0 likes   

Rainband

#31 Postby Rainband » Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:51 pm

Stephanie wrote:Yes it is! :D
:D :D :D :D :wink: Thank god :lol:

Johnathan :wink:
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#32 Postby Stephanie » Fri Mar 28, 2003 8:32 pm

Rainband wrote:
Stephanie wrote:Yes it is! :D
:D :D :D :D :wink: Thank god :lol:

Johnathan :wink:


LOL!!!
0 likes   

wannabehippie

#33 Postby wannabehippie » Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:05 pm

one final note from me.

while there are many good corporations out there, halliburton is not one of them.

they are/were under investigation from the SEC regarding their accounting practices during the 1990's (when cheney was the CEO of the company)



halliburton also in the early '90s for suppied Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons.
in fact they plead guilty in 1995 for dealings with libya. and paid close to $4million in penalties for doing so.

for the full article on their misdeeds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/on ... rimer.html

its things like that why a careful eye must be kept on them now with their new no bid contract with the federal government.


peace
david
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#34 Postby Stephanie » Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:54 am

Thanks for the info!
0 likes   

wannabehippie

#35 Postby wannabehippie » Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:53 pm

*bump*
0 likes   

User avatar
Arizwx
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Coast,U.S.A.
Contact:

What is Your Agenda?

#36 Postby Arizwx » Sun Mar 30, 2003 9:17 am

wannabehippie wrote:one final note from me.

while there are many good corporations out there, halliburton is not one of them.

they are/were under investigation from the SEC regarding their accounting practices during the 1990's (when cheney was the CEO of the company)



halliburton also in the early '90s for suppied Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons.
in fact they plead guilty in 1995 for dealings with libya. and paid close to $4million in penalties for doing so.

for the full article on their misdeeds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/on ... rimer.html

its things like that why a careful eye must be kept on them now with their new no bid contract with the federal government.

David,
I repect your concerns for keeping Corporate America honest.. I am too.
Howver..first the swipe at Cheney(cleverly disguised within the Haliburton connection) with regard to War 'Profiteering' and now you alledge..cleverly once agian via Haliburton..that they supplied Libya with Oil Drilling equipment that 'could' be used to detonate a ThermoNuke?
What is your agenda?Be direct.
Is it your contention that Cheney has sold out this nation?Put is at risk?Knowingly?That is serious David.
Moreover..please explain why you believe he would do this.I am very interested.Once again,your allegations,cleverly disguised or not are VERY serious.


peace
david
0 likes   

wannabehippie

Re: What is Your Agenda?

#37 Postby wannabehippie » Sun Mar 30, 2003 10:16 am

Arizwx wrote:David,
I repect your concerns for keeping Corporate America honest.. I am too.
Howver..first the swipe at Cheney(cleverly disguised within the Haliburton connection) with regard to War 'Profiteering' and now you alledge..cleverly once agian via Haliburton..that they supplied Libya with Oil Drilling equipment that 'could' be used to detonate a ThermoNuke?
What is your agenda?Be direct.
Is it your contention that Cheney has sold out this nation?Put is at risk?Knowingly?That is serious David.
Moreover..please explain why you believe he would do this.I am very interested.Once again,your allegations,cleverly disguised or not are VERY serious.


peace
david
[/quote]

the charges against halliburton for dealings with libya are not allegations, the plead guilty to them and paid a heavy fine, under cheneys watch.

judicial watch, most certainly NOT a liberal group (the go after republicans and democrats fairly equally) has suits against them for misdoings under cheney.

what this all comes down to is that any government dealings with halliburton given their history and relationship with VP cheney must be watched extremely carefully.

they have shown in the past that they will do anything for a profit, including breaking the law and dealing with outlaw countries. which goes back to my orignal post.
my agenda is this given halliburtons history should the government be giving them no bid contracts ? they have shown many times that they cannot be trusted to do whats right, so why should they be trusted not to "pad" their costs.

as far as VP cheney goes, the charges against them in dealing with libya, were before he came on board as CEO in 1995 so he was NOT a part of that misdealings. but the accounting misdeeds came under his watch.

also and i quote from the above article " SEC had begun a probe into the company's booking of cost overruns on energy-related construction jobs. This practice accounted for the overruns as revenue, even if customers had not yet approved the charges, and inflated Halliburton profits by almost $100 million in 1998. "

that is an enron like charge, not surprising considering that halliburtons accounting firm was arthur anderson.
it goes back to the fact that halliburton is not a company to be trusted with no bid contracts.

and i forgot who said it earlier, but it was said that it takes 3-4 months for a bid to go thru. the white house could have easily asked for bids for potential work in iraq in case of war as far back as october, but they chose not to.

while i dont think VP cheney is profiting personally from dealings with halliburton at this time (i believe he divested himself when he was elected)
there is definately a politcal connection between halliburton and the white house.

peace
david
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests