Halliburton Wins Iraq Contract

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corn

Oh, and if you forgot, the Dems forced Cheney to sell all of his Halliburton stock prior to the election.

Oh c'mon! Don't you know, Cheney has a backroom deal going and is going to make billions off this and one day rule the world!!!! 😉

Come on, why would a guy who has a heart that resembles a sausage want to rule the world?

lol

 

[jjones]

Well it has to go to someone. It's too bad the report did not go into detail enough to show all those other bidders that wre purposely pushed aside in order to award the contract to Halliburton. Or if it was even an open bidding process. Other than stating that the contract went to Halliburton, that report says little else.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: jjones
Well it has to go to someone. It's too bad the report did not go into detail enough to show all those other bidders that wre purposely pushed aside in order to award the contract to Halliburton. Or if it was even an open bidding process. Other than stating that the contract went to Halliburton, that report says little else.

if they were pushed aside, you would hear alot more bitching.

 

[Red Dawn]

If Haliburton is the best at what they do and their price is fair who cares?

 

[Thegonagle]

OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

Someone didn't teach you about the spoils of war in history class... 😀

Cheney does not own any Haliburton stock, what could he have to gain from this?

: ) Hopper

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: CPA
So? Who else would you have handle this? Haliburton is, I believe, the largest oil pipeline engineering and repair company in the country. Oh, and if you forgot, the Dems forced Cheney to sell all of his Halliburton stock prior to the election.

democrats forced?? that's too bad. i would have expected him to have sold them of his own volition.

um, yes, they bitched and moaned about his stock holdings during the campaign, effectively forcing him to sell. And as another asked, why the heck should he have to sell anyways? And what's even more rediculous, is after he sold (due to the pressure), the market started heading down, which led the same Dems to bitch and moan that he sold knowing insider information. How hypicritical.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

 

[dullard]

There were 5 or 6 companies capable of doing the work (I saw a brief report about this on CNN news last night). Supposedly there was a bidding process and after all that Halliburton got the contract. If and only if some other company out bid Halliburton and still didn't get the contract, then there is a major issue here. If Halliburton gave the best deal, then there is no issure here.

By the way that report said they would be using Iraqi money and Iraqi oil to pay for this. That makes it appear like we went in to take their oil (I'm not saying we did, but it certainly won't look good when we start taking their oil to pay for things).

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: jjones
Well it has to go to someone. It's too bad the report did not go into detail enough to show all those other bidders that wre purposely pushed aside in order to award the contract to Halliburton. Or if it was even an open bidding process. Other than stating that the contract went to Halliburton, that report says little else.

if they were pushed aside, you would hear alot more bitching.

Yeah, that was my thought. The award of the contract appears to be linked to an earlier study. Who participated in that study besides Halliburton? Were other bidders involved when this contract went out? Was it even an open bid?

I've participated in many government, military, and GSA contracts as a bidding contractor. It all depends upon the circumstances as to how a contract is awarded. Sometimes for specific reasoning they can sole source a contract. The previous study noted in the report leads me to believe that this may have been the case.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: dullard
There were 5 or 6 companies capable of doing the work (I saw a brief report about this on CNN news last night). Supposedly there was a bidding process and after all that Halliburton got the contract. If and only if some other company out bid Halliburton and still didn't get the contract, then there is a major issue here. If Halliburton gave the best deal, then there is no issure here.

By the way that report said they would be using Iraqi money and Iraqi oil to pay for this. That makes it appear like we went in to take their oil (I'm not saying we did, but it certainly won't look good when we start taking their oil to pay for things).

I haven't seen anything about the bidding process; that was why I was questioning if it was an open bid. If that is the case, I would think there would be some kind of news if other contractors were disgruntled with the outcome.

 

[lupy]

You think Halliburton won fair and square? They won because of a secret bidding, British firms were not allowed to bid even though the Brits are also part of coalition to free Iraq.

Before you ask me for proof, here it is:

Secret bidding

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: dullard
There were 5 or 6 companies capable of doing the work (I saw a brief report about this on CNN news last night). Supposedly there was a bidding process and after all that Halliburton got the contract. If and only if some other company out bid Halliburton and still didn't get the contract, then there is a major issue here. If Halliburton gave the best deal, then there is no issure here.

By the way that report said they would be using Iraqi money and Iraqi oil to pay for this. That makes it appear like we went in to take their oil (I'm not saying we did, but it certainly won't look good when we start taking their oil to pay for things).

We'll never know...they're secret biddings...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: lupy
You think Halliburton won fair and square? They won because of a secret bidding, British firms were not allowed to bid even though the Brits are also part of coalition to free Iraq.

Before you ask me for proof, here it is:

Secret bidding

This part from the article says it all:

The secret bidding is legal, but controversial.

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: lupy
You think Halliburton won fair and square? They won because of a secret bidding, British firms were not allowed to bid even though the Brits are also part of coalition to free Iraq.

Before you ask me for proof, here it is:

Secret bidding

This part from the article says it all:

The secret bidding is legal, but controversial.

Obviously it has to be legal, I was merely suggesting that since it's secret bidding, you can't argue that Halliburton won fair and square.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: lupy

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: lupy
You think Halliburton won fair and square? They won because of a secret bidding, British firms were not allowed to bid even though the Brits are also part of coalition to free Iraq.

Before you ask me for proof, here it is:

Secret bidding

This part from the article says it all:

The secret bidding is legal, but controversial.

Obviously it has to be legal, I was merely suggesting that since it's secret bidding, you can't argue that Halliburton won fair and square.

Well, then by the same logic, you cannot argue that they didn't win fair and square, now can you?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: KC5AV

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: CPA
So? Who else would you have handle this? Haliburton is, I believe, the largest oil pipeline engineering and repair company in the country. Oh, and if you forgot, the Dems forced Cheney to sell all of his Halliburton stock prior to the election.

democrats forced?? that's too bad. i would have expected him to have sold them of his own volition.

Just because he had stock in the company?

Yeah its called a conflict of interest, he would be less likely to do what is best for the country if he personally stands to lose a few million, I don't hold it against him, it is basic human nature, self preservtion and greed.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

So you want the Iraqi Oil Company which is run by the Iraqi government that we are now fighting to be awarded the contract to put out the fires that the Iraqi military started. Boy, you're a smart one. The fires are burning now and I don't think we want to wait around to start putting them out.

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: lupy

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: lupy
You think Halliburton won fair and square? They won because of a secret bidding, British firms were not allowed to bid even though the Brits are also part of coalition to free Iraq.

Before you ask me for proof, here it is:

Secret bidding

This part from the article says it all:

The secret bidding is legal, but controversial.

Obviously it has to be legal, I was merely suggesting that since it's secret bidding, you can't argue that Halliburton won fair and square.

Well, then by the same logic, you cannot argue that they didn't win fair and square, now can you?

If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Haliburton is the best at what they do and their price is fair who cares?

Aint that the truth

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

So you want the Iraqi Oil Company which is run by the Iraqi government that we are now fighting to be awarded the contract to put out the fires that the Iraqi military started. Boy, you're a smart one. The fires are burning now and I don't think we want to wait around to start putting them out.

No, fires should be put out immediately, duh.

Like I said, we're in a real mess here. We don't really know how we're going to get out of this one once Sadam is gone, do we? The US military will rule Iraq for how long? As far as they're concerned, 1 day is too long.

 

[3L33T32003]

Originally posted by: Queasy
B.A.U - Business As Usual.


Seriously, tell me that this isn't the way the business is normally conducted in D.C. for the past...ohhh, forever.

Can you PLEASE prove to me, with links, that when CLINTON fired missles into Iraq, and when CLINTON went to Kosovo and Haiti, that companies previously headed by him or Al Gore were awarded multi-billion dollar contracts to clean up the mess afterwards?

And don't you just LOVE how the army spread leaflets that said "don't burn your oil fields" to the Iraqi army???? Yeah, that will stop them! Kinda makes the connection easy to see, eh?

People should not say "blood for oil" they should say "blood for Haliburton."

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Originally posted by: Queasy
B.A.U - Business As Usual.


Seriously, tell me that this isn't the way the business is normally conducted in D.C. for the past...ohhh, forever.

Can you PLEASE prove to me, with links, that when CLINTON fired missles into Iraq, and when CLINTON went to Kosovo and Haiti, that companies previously headed by him or Al Gore were awarded multi-billion dollar contracts to clean up the mess afterwards?

And don't you just LOVE how the army spread leaflets that said "don't burn your oil fields" to the Iraqi army???? Yeah, that will stop them! Kinda makes the connection easy to see, eh?

People should not say "blood for oil" they should say "blood for Haliburton."

can you PROVE that Halliburton was given the contract due to Cheney? If you cannot PROVE it, STFU. 🙂

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Garfang
OK, I got the link to work. . .

It is about rebuilding the infrastructure. Hmmmmm. . . We didn't build it in the first place, did we? Shouldn't we pay for the Iraqi oil companies to rebuild their own wells? Wouldn't that help a liberated Iraq out more? Didn't they say "the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq?" Didn't they mean it? I suspect not. If there's one thing Iraq has proven themselves quite capable of, it's running an oil business. After we liberate, shouldn't we be letting them call the shots in their oil business? I guess not. I think they in Washington DC want to run, and profit from, Iraq's oil business for as long as they possibly can.

You mean the Iraqi oil company that's owned by the government and only exists to contract with outside oil companies like those in France, Russia, etc??? Outside oil companies built the Iraqi refineries, pipelines, etc.... Same thing in Saudi. Oh they have a national oil company, but all they do is contract with outside oil companies. Do a bit of reading before you come on here and speak about something you know nothing about.

I still say that if the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, then the people of Iraq should be calling the shots. The majority of in Iraq people might not like Sadam, but they really, really, dislike us, and do not want us running their country or their oil business. As far as they're concerned, the enemy they know (Sadam) is better than the enemy they don't know (the US). (Good God, what a mess we're in here.)

So you want the Iraqi Oil Company which is run by the Iraqi government that we are now fighting to be awarded the contract to put out the fires that the Iraqi military started. Boy, you're a smart one. The fires are burning now and I don't think we want to wait around to start putting them out.

No, fires should be put out immediately, duh.

Like I said, we're in a real mess here. We don't really know how we're going to get out of this one once Sadam is gone, do we? The US military will rule Iraq for how long? As far as they're concerned, 1 day is too long.

Then how do you propose we get those fires put out if we don't award the contract to a non Iraqi company?

As for ruling Iraq long term....I don't think it will happen. We will most likely have to run the country for 6 months to a year, but we will only do so while a new government elected BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE is getting setup.