On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:27:12 -0700, Mr Wizzard wrote:


So help me understand here So what exactally is "wrong" with things that
favor Haliburton, and having oil as our best interest? To this day, I
honestly don't understand this. Be it awarding Haliburton with contracts
in Iraq, or this, (or any other thing that favors Haliburton, and/or the
oil industry). Isn't this actually a "good" thing ? I mean, as I
understand it, Haliburton is a very experienced at oil
exploration/consulting etc., and they are State side, and hire mostly
Americans, right ? I mean, they are the best equipped to do the job, so
what's the problem? Further, what is wrong with haveing oil as one of
this country's best interests? Who does it benefit to "not" have oil as
our best interest? (and how)? What, you want $9/gallon gas like in Europe
and such? Having oil in our best interest (be it wartime, *or* peacetime)
is a very noble thing. And it should go to the most experienced, best
equipped company, and even better if the company is an American company
comprised or American workers operating on American lands. (not the French
- they got caught in an illegal $60B oil deal with one Mr Saddam Hussien).

I don't have any problem with Halliburton, per se, but I do have a problem
with awarding no-bid contracts, especially when the awarder and the
awardee have such close ties. Oh, and the French weren't the only ones
caught with their finger in the pie.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1012-33.htm

Oh, and those American workers, perhaps they aren't so American:

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News...0/23news06.htm