Halliburton Wins Iraq Contract

[Corn]

Apparently the taste of hypocrisy is a little too hard to bear for some people...

Apparently some people don't know the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Since when does legal = fair?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

As for the leaflets....every heard of PsyOps?

Ever hear of "generating revenue?"

If the Iraqi army knew that Bush and Cheney would personally profit from burning oil fields, do you think they would burn them?

You are making no sense.....

 

[MaxDepth]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Do you people even realize that there aren't many companies in the U.S. even capable of handling these type of fires? That a contract would go to Halliburton isn't a surprise and shouldn't be viewed as some shady deal. They have expertise in this area and in a case like this you want the best people for the job. Unless you want to go dig up Red Adair I don't think you are going to find anyone better than Halliburton to do the job. Some of you people really need to stop looking for conspiracies everywhere.

Yep. If we can't raise the original Hellmouth capper, himself,, then we need to raise the ghost of Chance Buckman AKA John Wayne!

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Do you people even realize that there aren't many companies in the U.S. even capable of handling these type of fires? That a contract would go to Halliburton isn't a surprise and shouldn't be viewed as some shady deal. They have expertise in this area and in a case like this you want the best people for the job. Unless you want to go dig up Red Adair I don't think you are going to find anyone better than Halliburton to do the job. Some of you people really need to stop looking for conspiracies everywhere.

Yep. If we can't raise the original Hellmouth capper, himself,, then we need to raise the ghost of Chance Buckman AKA John Wayne!

Nah....if John Wayne were over there he would most likely be playing a Marine of some sort.....plus I really don't think he would like Iraq all that much since I've never seen a horse there.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Since when does legal = fair?

We've been using the term "fair and square". To decide what is fair and square you have to fall back upon established rules; in this case, contract law is what you would use to establish what is fair and square. This gives a basis and a framework within which to proceed.

If you cannot implement established rules, you are just basing fair and square upon opinion and there is really no further need for discussion once opinions are expressed. What is fair and square never gets established to the satisfaction of anyone, as you can see from this thread, and just leaves a situation floundering with no means to achieve resolution.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

As for the leaflets....every heard of PsyOps?

Ever hear of "generating revenue?"

If the Iraqi army knew that Bush and Cheney would personally profit from burning oil fields, do you think they would burn them?

You are making no sense.....

Shhh....the black helicoptors hovering over his house might take him away if they think he's a serious threat.

 

[Wag]

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

All the people who got screwed over by another one of Cheney's/Bush's friends- Ken Lay? People are pissed enough as it is, this isn't going endear the Bush Admin to the working class.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Wag

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

All the people who got screwed over by another one of Cheney's/Bush's friends- Ken Lay? People are pissed enough as it is, this isn't going endear the Bush Admin to the working class.

Lay was a friend of Clinton's as well.

As I mentioned previously, if Haliburton got any kind of favortism, that is nothing new in D.C. That place operates on the "You scratch my back, I scratch yours" mentality.

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Corn

Just pointing out the hypocrisy, sorry I made you mad

No need for you to be sorry, for why would I be mad at you for making a fool of yourself? In order to point out hypocrisy, one must use examples of someone actually being a hypocrite. What relevency does OJ being guilty or not have to do with a bidding process? Also, Clinton was never on trial for having sex with Monica, and therefore never "acquitted" of that crime.

Back from lunch, so here we go again

If you read carefully, jjones is the one who used legality to argue that Halliburton won fair and square. Well OJ and Clinton were all acquitted in the court of law, therefore it is only reasonable for me to question him whether he thinks the court's decisions were fair and square.

As to the issue of Clinton. He was impeached for lying under oath about the relationship he had with Monica that didn't get enough votes, so he was acquitted.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Wag

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

All the people who got screwed over by another one of Cheney's/Bush's friends- Ken Lay? People are pissed enough as it is, this isn't going endear the Bush Admin to the working class.

You mean the same Ken Lay that gave large amounts of money to Bill Clinton/Al Gore and spent a few nights in the White House during the Clinton Administration?

 

[Ferocious]

And this surprises anyone?

It's about the $$$ folks.

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Corn
You know what, I've decided I'll take your little strawman argument and run with it.

Do I think that OJ was acquitted fair and square?

I sure do. In this country, our judicial system requires that those who are found guilty of crimes be done so beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the case of the OJ trial, the prosecution was unable to accomplish this task.

This does not mean that I don't think OJ was guilty, only that he was not found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

Where is the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy is apparent. You agreed with the court's decision and concludes that "OJ was acquitted fair and square", then your opinion that you think OJ was guilty directly conflicts what you have stated a moment ago.
Maybe I should take that back, hypocrisy is not the correct term here. A lack of logical reasoning is more suitable

 

[UNCjigga]

How would the UN have handled this bidding process?? What other companies or NGOs have the experience to handle this kind of rebuilding?

 

[BDawg]

From the smart ads below.

Halliburton Asbestos
Lawsuits and claims. Find attorneys nationwide.

Careers at Andersen
Fast-track your career with our consulting advice & insights

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: BDawg
From the smart ads below.

Halliburton Asbestos
Lawsuits and claims. Find attorneys nationwide.

Careers at Andersen
Fast-track your career with our consulting advice & insights

 

[Corn]

The hypocrisy is apparent. You agreed with the court's decision and concludes that "OJ was acquitted fair and square", then your opinion that you think OJ was guilty directly conflicts what you have stated a moment ago.

It absolutely positively 100% does not! OJ was acquitted "fair and square", my opinion as far as what I believe his guilt or innocense has nothing to do with the former. Talk about a lack of logical reasoning! I never said that I agreed with the jury's decision, only that I thought their decision was rendered fair and square according to the rules the jury was charged with following. Misrepresenting what I say doesn't help your position. Quite the contrary.

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Corn

The hypocrisy is apparent. You agreed with the court's decision and concludes that "OJ was acquitted fair and square", then your opinion that you think OJ was guilty directly conflicts what you have stated a moment ago.

It absolutely positively 100% does not! OJ was acquitted "fair and square", my opinion as far as what I believe his guilt or innocense has nothing to do with the former. Talk about a lack of logical reasoning! I never said that I agreed with the jury's decision, only that I thought their decision was rendered fair and square according to the rules the jury was charged with following. Misrepresenting what I say doesn't help your position. Quite the contrary.

If you want to argue on the point of technicality, then let's do so:

Did or didn't you say "OJ was acquitted fair and square" by the court? I didn't put anything extra in your mouth, you said it! Now apparently you are trying to back out and say you don't agree with the "fair and square" decision made by our judicial system, which is it? If that's not illogical thinking, I don't know what is!

You dug yourself a hole, now it's your job to pull yourself out!

 

[Fencer128]

What is the reason for a secret tender process?

Andy

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
What is the reason for a secret tender process?

Andy

To eliminate competition, what else?

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
What is the reason for a secret tender process?

Andy

Isn't like 90% of government contract bidding done this way though? I know the few bids my dad's company has tried have all been secret tender or something like that.

 

[3L33T32003]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

As for the leaflets....every heard of PsyOps?

Ever hear of "generating revenue?"

If the Iraqi army knew that Bush and Cheney would personally profit from burning oil fields, do you think they would burn them?

You are making no sense.....

Think about it. Your dad comes in and says "I don't want you to go paint graffiti on the mall." You hate your dad's guts, so you go spraypaint the wall...not knowing that your dad's janitorial firm gets a huge contract from the mall owners.

But if you DID know that your dad was gonna get rich by something YOU did out of hatred, would you do it? Do you defy him and spraypaint the wall anyway knowing it makes him rich, or do you say f you and NOT spray paint the wall, hurting him more?

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Do you people even realize that there aren't many companies in the U.S. even capable of handling these type of fires? That a contract would go to Halliburton isn't a surprise and shouldn't be viewed as some shady deal. They have expertise in this area and in a case like this you want the best people for the job. Unless you want to go dig up Red Adair I don't think you are going to find anyone better than Halliburton to do the job. Some of you people really need to stop looking for conspiracies everywhere.

didn't you know that companies are supposed to fold once they have a former employee go into politics?

Are they supposed to keep them on payroll, deferred compensation notwithstanding?
Haliburton isn't the only company paying Cheney / Bush back.

 

[Corn]

If you want to argue on the point of technicality, then let's do so:

I'm not arguing on the point of technicality, you're trying to prove hypocrisy, I'm clearly demonstrating why that argument is null.

Did or didn't you say "OJ was acquitted fair and square" by the court?

Indeed that is what I said.

I didn't put anything extra in your mouth, you said it!

Really, let's see what you said:

You agreed with the court's decision...

That is where you put words into my mouth. You claim that I agreed with the court's decision, something that I had never said. I agreed that their decision was made fair and square, but not that I agreed with the decision! I have not backtracked anything that I had said.

OJ was acquitted fair and square, according to the rule of law......just because I acknowledge that fact, doesn't mean that I believe him to be innocent. It's not the outcome that is supposed to be "fair", but the process. This is where your claim of hypocrisy and logic falls flat and thus the hole you cannot climb out of.

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Corn

If you want to argue on the point of technicality, then let's do so:

I'm not arguing on the point of technicality, you're trying to prove hypocrisy, I'm clearly demonstrating why that argument is null.

Did or didn't you say "OJ was acquitted fair and square" by the court?

Indeed that is what I said.

I didn't put anything extra in your mouth, you said it!

Really, let's see what you said:

You agreed with the court's decision...

That is where you put words into my mouth. You claim that I agreed with the court's decision, something that I had never said. I agreed that their decision was made fair and square, but not that I agreed with the decision! I have not backtracked anything that I had said.

OJ was acquitted fair and square, according to the rule of law......just because I acknowledge that fact, doesn't mean that I believe him to be innocent. It's not the outcome that is supposed to be "fair", but the process. This is where your claim of hypocrisy and logic falls flat and thus the hole you cannot climb out of.

Ok, let's put everything on record here:

You agree that:

1. OJ was acquitted fair and square by our court according to the rule of law.
2. The decision by the court that made OJ innocent of the murder charges conflicts with your belief that OJ should've been guilty as charged, in other words, in your view, you don't think the outcome is fair and square to victims' families.

Conflicting thoughts indeed!

Now back to the topic of this thread:

My original post:

"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(link)"

I say Halliburton didn't win the bid fair and square because they won thru a secret bidding process, which is legal yet very controversial. It isn't fair to other qualified firms that may have placed higher bids or want to bid on the reconstruction of Iraq but were prevented from entering because of the US government. Since the bidding is secret, there is no way to verify the fairness of the selection.

Here is a simple proof to support my little argument:

1. Information that can't be verified is not fact.
2. Secret bidding does not allow selection process to be verified.
3. Halliburton won the contract thru a secret bidding process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton didn't win the bid fair and square!