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

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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.

So why is this an issue? Are there really other
State side companies that are equally as good
as Haliburton? In Iraq, and as I inderstand it,
there *were* no other other state side companies
capable of doing the work that needed to be done
in Iraq. And we *damn* sure wern't gonna hire
some European, or French company, right?
(I mean, was that even a rational idea anyways ?)

Oh, and the French weren't the only ones
caught with their finger in the pie.

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


Yeah, that whole UN scandle with the Kofi/CoJo Annun
thing, yeah, sheese/


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

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

This article was reading pretty good up to the last paragrah
which exposes it for what the article really is - bunk. There
is nothing wrong with "greed" - it *is* the sole element of
capitalism, and the sooner all Americans realie this, the
sooner we will all get this anti-American/anti-Capitalism
under control. We are a "law-based", Capitalism based
society which is a good thing. Be it sleezy salesman, or
Wall Marts, etc., companies, and corporate America
forms companies, and corporations to "make money".
We are not a "feel good" society - profits first (which
benifits *everyone* in the form of a robust economy,
stocks, investment funds, tax revenue etc), and the
feel-good/warm-n-fuzzy thing second, guided by "law"
which prevents "greed" from hurting anyone. This is
*not* socialism. Capitalism is not for the faint of heart.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:38:56 -0700, Mr Wizzard wrote:


So why is this an issue? Are there really other State side companies that
are equally as good as Haliburton? In Iraq, and as I inderstand it,
there *were* no other other state side companies capable of doing the work
that needed to be done in Iraq. And we *damn* sure wern't gonna hire some
European, or French company, right? (I mean, was that even a rational idea
anyways ?)

You know this, how? Of course their are other American companies that are
capable of doing this work. In most cases, Halliburton was doing was
hiring other companies to do the work.



This article was reading pretty good up to the last paragrah which exposes
it for what the article really is - bunk. There is nothing wrong with
"greed" - it *is* the sole element of capitalism, and the sooner all
Americans realie this, the sooner we will all get this
anti-American/anti-Capitalism under control.

Shades of Gordon Gecko. Funny, but I thought what made capitalism a
healthy system wasn't greed, but competition. And there was no
competition in the Halliburton contract.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11525

We are a "law-based",
Capitalism based society which is a good thing. Be it sleezy salesman, or
Wall Marts, etc., companies, and corporate America forms companies, and
corporations to "make money". We are not a "feel good" society - profits
first (which benifits *everyone* in the form of a robust economy, stocks,
investment funds, tax revenue etc), and the feel-good/warm-n-fuzzy thing
second, guided by "law" which prevents "greed" from hurting anyone. This
is *not* socialism. Capitalism is not for the faint of heart.

You do have a distorted sense of capitalism. You may wish to take a
remedial look at free markets. Greed, if you want to call it that, only
accounts for one side of the paradigm, the supply side. On the market
side, I would say the more important side, the driving force is not greed,
far from it.