Did Haliburton knowingly violate US laws regarding business with IRAN

[dahunan]

Here is some of it.. and I will offer search links for you to read and find your own source..

I say that the US media is afraid to speak about the Nuclear issues....

"What has happened is against U.S. laws . . . and the people involved in this transaction must be put in jail, according to American law," Ledeen replied.

Halliburton denied it had violated a U.S. law banning "direct or indirect exportation of U.S.-origin goods, services, or technology to Iran or the Government of Iran."

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.

"We are in the service business, not the foreign-policy business," she said. "We have followed and will continue to follow applicable laws."

Then, on Jan. 27, more details emerged. The Financial Times of London (subscription required) confirmed that Naseri, "a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear programme ... [was]... at the heart of deals with US energy companies to develop the country's oil industry."

The FT described Naseri as "a leading board member" of Oriental Kish, the Iranian company leading the South Pars project. Oriental Kish, in turn, subcontracted parts of the project to Halliburton Products and Services registered in the Cayman Islands. Unnamed Iranian sources were quoted as saying that Naseri has a "close relationship" with Iran's clerical establishment. Oriental Kish's deal with Halliburton could not have happened without "high-level approval on the Iranian side," the FT said.

The next day Halliburton announced the South Pars gas field project would be its last in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment."

But don't expect Halliburton to leave Iran any time soon. The company has opened an unmarked office on the 10th floor of a Tehran office building, according to Vivienne Walt of Fortune Magazine. Since the South Pars project is expected to take 52 months to complete, according to the Tehran-based Mehr news agency, Halliburton seems likely to remain in Iran through 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...en&q=Halliburton+nuclear+business+iran

 

[dahunan]

Unworthy topic I guess

 

[piasabird]

US Laws only apply inside the US. This sounds a little shady on the surface, but who knows what exactly they did. Nuclear equipment can just be something like metal tubing. It is not really nuclear it can be used to make moonshine. You have to be specific. Did they sell a reactor? You have to build a reactor from scratch. You cant just buy one and move it.

 

[dahunan]

did they sell goods to Iran that were first sold to their cayman islands from the US?

We claimed some Aluminum Tubing found in Iraq was intended for Nuclear Cabalities... but was argues before the invasion to only be for their short range legal missiles. **but you would allow a US Subsidiary to sell the Iranian Govt. the same things?

 

[Todd33]

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.

Loopholes for the win!

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.

Loopholes for the win!

just shows that the system is broken

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.

Loopholes for the win!

Wonder how much of a tax break that gave them on the earnings?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Todd33

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.

Loopholes for the win!

Wonder how much of a tax break that gave them on the earnings?

With the recent tax holiday, they were taxed 5% instead of the normal 30% on overseas profits.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Todd33

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.

Loopholes for the win!

Wonder how much of a tax break that gave them on the earnings?

With the recent tax holiday, they were taxed 5% instead of the normal 30% on overseas profits.

While selling US MADE GOODS to the enemy within some loophole that KEEPS AMERICA SAFER because strong US corporations keep America strong no matter how they are earning their profits

 

[1EZduzit]

If it's good for Haliburton, then it must be good for us too!!

 

[Stunt]

I have no problem with US companies doing business with Iran, besides it was a subsidiary.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have no problem with US companies doing business with Iran, besides it was a subsidiary.

What if they knowingly sold them parts used to help them build their nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities?

 

[Merovingian]

Everybody loves Haliburton! wOOt!

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have no problem with US companies doing business with Iran, besides it was a subsidiary.

What if they knowingly sold them parts used to help them build their nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities?

Depends if you think Iran wants nukes or not.

Personally i think they are developing for peaceful means and as a research development. (nuclear power that is) My buddy's uncle is doing research on nuclear technology here in Canada, and he is from Iran. Great guy, I hope he goes back with some good practical knowledge to better the lives of his countrymen.

Worst case scenario is Iran gets nukes, personally I don't think this would be a huge problem. The Iranian people are intelligent and would not stand for a leadership who nukes countries. Many iranians are young and would take down the government in the small chance of launch. That being said, nukes in Iran could create a balance in the Middle East as Israel has a mere 6million people out of a region with over 400 million muslims. I'd like to see some power shift in the Middle East, nukes or no nukes. (preferably not, remember this is a worst case)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have no problem with US companies doing business with Iran, besides it was a subsidiary.

Well, that raises an interesting question. Selling that stuff to Iran is certainly against US policy (AFAIK), and is the subsidiary relationship enough of a shield?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have no problem with US companies doing business with Iran, besides it was a subsidiary.

Well, that raises an interesting question. Selling that stuff to Iran is certainly against US policy (AFAIK), and is the subsidiary relationship enough of a shield?

How useful is a ban if the rest of the world trades with it?
Haliburton is no more wrong than the rest of the world.

If the ban was justified, I'd care, but not on these merits.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have no problem with US companies doing business with Iran, besides it was a subsidiary.

Well, that raises an interesting question. Selling that stuff to Iran is certainly against US policy (AFAIK), and is the subsidiary relationship enough of a shield?

How useful is a ban if the rest of the world trades with it?
Haliburton is no more wrong than the rest of the world.

If the ban was justified, I'd care, but not on these merits.

Then we cannot complain about oil for food scandals

Plus... since other countries use torture then everyone should be allowed.. -- wait.. I also forgot the magic part.. IF they can contract out their torture abilities for $$$ then that is even better, right? Blackwater USA is a shining example of what free trade should be

 

[Stunt]

And that relates to Iran's bans how?

 

[Merovingian]

I don't know why someone doesn't launch an independant investigation into Haliburton to settle it. I'm curious because I would guess there is much abuse and conflict of interest but if there were so then it would seem someone would launch an investigation. Hmm.