flyingferret 0 #1 March 29, 2003 I thought this was pretty cool actually. A shame it had to be, but pretty cool that both the company and administration want to avoid even the appearence of impropriety http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #2 March 29, 2003 Quote Halliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit this week was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the deal's monetary value they won't get them directly, but will be awarded work by "sub contracting" through subsideraries. being awarded a job by the corp of engineers, let's see, nah, no way there's a "conflict of interest there" wonder why halliburton wouldn't speculate on the monetary value? quite suspecious, there's got to be a contract in place, somewhere. Quote A shame it had to be, but pretty cool that both the company and administration want to avoid even the appearence of impropriety i think the above paragraph from the news link you posted pretty much shoots this theory out of the saddle. it would seem like this article is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth. would you be dissapointed to learn Dick Cheney actually had first hand knowledge of explosives being sold to iraq at one time or another? what about if he profited from the sales directly? if you believe otherwise, i've got some ocean front property in arizona, cheap! "wake up and smell the coffee, the bacon's on fire."--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #3 March 29, 2003 Hey guys, firstly Malachi, thanks for the link. Richard, this is a typical administration type contract. Blow outs will be initially controlled by the likes of Boots and Coots. Any kill work willl probably be by Halliburton cementing, wirelining by Schlumberger etc.....This type of contract is won on a schedule of rates, sub contracting is inevitable. "Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the deal's monetary value" I'm not surprised, there is no defining scope until the facilities are safe and totally booby trap free, then an accurate damage assessment can be conducted. Fortunately it doesn't look that bad, so far, I'm busy enough as it is. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #4 March 29, 2003 Well, we already disagree about the current administration. But I think it is cool that rather than cause problems for everyone, they step back from some big time dough. Yeah, they can get subcontracts, but those are controlled by the general contractors. Are you trying to say all the general contractors are in a conspiracy with Cheney and Haliburton.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #5 March 29, 2003 And there you have it....NacMac is in league with Cheney too. Seriously how many companies in the world really have the Petro infrastructure that Haliburton does? They could have scored big, instead they said hey lets avoid even the look of scandal, we are bad ass enough we can get subcontracts from independent entities. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #6 March 29, 2003 QuoteSeriously how many companies in the world really have the Petro infrastructure that Haliburton does? Dowell-Schlumberger for one. QuoteThey could have scored big, instead they said hey lets avoid even the look of scandal, we are bad ass enough we can get subcontracts from independent entities your quoting them? the army corp of engineers is hardly an independent entity, "give me a break!" first the comment is made halliburton is avoiding scandal by NOT taking contracts to avoid any missconception of missappropration, now this comment is being made. which is it?--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #7 March 29, 2003 Hi Dave: as you know, and i know the day to day business aspects of our industry, there are some that "speculate" and try to exonorate the administration from any missapropriation as it were. this is a ludricrous effort at just such an attempt. the link that was posted does do some "double talikng" as it were. any attempt at seperating the administration from any money or contracts awarded post-sadaam iraq are merely speculative at this point and time, but it's not politically correct to imply that certain individuals will not profit from it in an obvious attempt to defend them for whatever reason.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #8 March 29, 2003 Dude, seriously never mind....I should have known to post this elsewhere. I was referring to QuoteA spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said. Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role. They are still elligible for sub contractors through one of the two remaining bidders. I would suspect neither of which is the Corp of Engineers. As to the previous contract, I was not referring to that, since it is likely smaller, they dealt with it in GW1, and it was no surprise the won it. I was in fact referring to their behavior in the future regarding this contract. I feel the need to change my signature.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #9 March 29, 2003 QuoteHalliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit this week was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the deal's monetary value this information came from the URL in your original post, thus putting it in direct conflict with your post title. i understand your support of the current administration, but trying to defend the current powers that be for whatever the reason with such information is a "double edged sword" if you have information that can be sustantiated with hard cold facts, i'd be more than interested in seeing them.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #10 March 29, 2003 They are two seperate contracts....did you read the article? They already one a contract, do you expect them to give it back and ask the Corp to redo the bidding process? I was commenting more to the fact that after people have started alleging things between Cheney and Haliburton, they have decided not to compete for the larger contract. How do those conflict? 1. they won a contract 2. people started alleging misconduct 3. in reaction to 2, they passed on further contracts. Makes sense to me.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #11 March 29, 2003 QuoteThey could have scored big, instead they said hey lets avoid even the look of scandal, we are bad ass enough we can get subcontracts from independent entities not my words. i never even alluded to the fact that anybody was "avoiding appearence of wrondoings" but i know someone who did. i've written more contracts in the last year than most have seen in a lifetime. the allegations of cheney's association with halliburton are well known, documented and haven't just started, it's actually been going on for years, would you like to see some evidence? a reality check is in order. i know some don't want to know the truth, but it's there, and it's generally unsavory, yet it's still the truth.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #12 March 29, 2003 So, you would rather us hire politicians that have never worked for/with/over a major corporation? I mean seriously, there is a big difference between association and biased compensation due to association.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #13 March 29, 2003 QuoteSo, you would rather us hire politicians that have never worked for/with/over a major corporation? I mean seriously, there is a big difference between association and biased compensation due to association. what's your point? remember, i pleaded "guilty" to having voted for these fools. how did we go from "avoiding apearance of wrongdoing" to "what kind of politicians we hire?" i'm not trying to point out or emphasize anything except that the majority of politicians are thieves and liars and political history proves my point, so there's no need for me to speculate on the matter. the obvious intention of trying to indemnify the administration or it's associates has been deflated, get over it. now let's talk about which country makes the most money off of the "oil for food" program. surely no one thinks this is a humanatarian project? or shall we disscuss selling firearms to the contras?--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #14 March 29, 2003 I think you and I speak different languages, really. Becoming a political figure is the last step in a huge chain of events, which usually involves serving in a corporate capacity. Pretty impossible to get public recognition without being attached to some big names. Does that mean you will give th unfair advantage later? Not necessarily. Does that mean you will know the exist at some later date, because you used to work for them and know what kind of work they did? Probably. My point stands, due to allegations, rather than getting involved in a flamewar trying to prove/disprove the allegations they stepped away from futher bids. I think it was a cool move. I agree to disagree.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #15 March 29, 2003 i don't need a lecture on political science, thanks anyway. QuoteHaliburton avoids appearences of wrongdoing by flyingferret absolutely nothing in the presented evidence so far proves this obvious rumor.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #16 March 29, 2003 Quote Haliburton avoids appearences of wrongdoing by flyingferret Flyingferret is doing something wrong with Halliburton? (LOL, Richard, the way you quoted that was funny! ) Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #17 March 29, 2003 Quote Flyingferret is doing something wrong with Halliburton? no, that is the title of his post topic. you knew that! --Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #18 March 29, 2003 I knew that....it was just a tickle to read it the way you quoted. Made me giggle...I didn't know Malachi was that highly placed! ROFL...Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
