Finally. A country moving money in the right direction when it comes to climate change!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Means- US Vice presidency

You need to show how the office of the VP is involved in the contract process for this to be valid.

Quote

Opportunity- The attack on 911 and rumor of WMD in iraq

And rumors of WMD have *what* to do with Halliburton?

Quote

That bloody shit storm was all about the oil why can't anyone just SAY IT.

Because there's no evidence to support except in the minds of the Moveon crowd. The import records damn sure don't show it and neither did the gas prices.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Misternatural 0]

Did you read Cheney's manifesto, I specifically called it that because it is a declaration of intent prior to his appointment, not that he could have known he was going to be VP at the time, however don't you think he brought all of that intent and investment that he had in Halliburton's interest both financial and as former CEO into the white house? you have to be seriously naive not to see that.He spelled his intent out in that speech.

It's not the imports that matter it is the vested interest in the oil and military service contracts that Halliburton garnered for that war. They are not in the business of transporting oil, they are chiefly in the drilling business.
-and while we are on the subject of imports, to make matters even worse as you pointed out this country is not getting much oil it so desperately is addicted to out of that deal. Halliburton made a killing both figurative and financially, Cheney as a direct beneficiary- and the general public both american and via dead iraqi civilians in addition to the veterans got shit out of it...can't you see that?

As VP he pressured the CIA to fabricate intelligence then have the sec of defense push that bullshit publicly, remember George Tenet, Colin Powell etc.- ring any bells as to why Colin Powell resigned?

He spelled out Saddams resistance to weapons inspections in that speech and that Halliburton has great interest in that region.

With regard to Move on .org et al.
You are continuing to align me with groups that you do not share an opinion with, I could give a fuck about them. What I care about is Cheney being tried and held accountable and that he and Halliburton cough up some payments al la Bernie Madoff for what they have done.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Did you read Cheney's manifesto, I specifically called it that because it is a declaration of intent prior to his appointment, not that he could have known he was going to be VP at the time, however don't you think he brought all of that intent and investment that he had in Halliburton's interest both financial and as former CEO into the white house? you have to be seriously naive not to see that.He spelled his intent out in that speech.

TWO YEARS before he was even picked - and you wonder why you're not taken seriously on it?

Quote

It's not the imports that matter it is the vested interest in the oil and military service contracts that Halliburton garnered for that war. They are not in the business of transporting oil, they are chiefly in the drilling business.

They've been in the military service contract business since the 60's, bro...it's not something that they came up with just for Iraq.

Quote

-and while we are on the subject of imports, to make matters even worse as you pointed out this country is not getting much oil it so desperately is addicted to out of that deal.

And what deal would that be, pray tell?

Quote

Halliburton made a killing both figurative and financially, Cheney as a direct beneficiary

Proof?

Quote

As VP he pressured the CIA to fabricate intelligence then have the sec of defense push that bullshit publicly, remember George Tenet, Colin Powell etc.- ring any bells as to why Colin Powell resigned?

Proof?

Quote

He spelled out Saddams resistance to weapons inspections in that speech and that Halliburton has great interest in that region.

Again, proof?

Quote

With regard to Move on .org et al.
You are continuing to align me with groups that you do not share an opinion with, I could give a fuck about them.

I'm mentioning groups that espouse the same viewpoints you seem to, with about as much proof as well.

Quote

What I care about is Cheney being tried and held accountable and that he and Halliburton cough up some payments al la Bernie Madoff for what they have done.

Don't you think you need to PROVE wrongdoing, first?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Not that I think you will admit to it... How many times has Halliburton and its subsideraries... beeen fined for cheating and defrauding the government on its contracts to the tune of many BILLIONS of dollars???

Dont you need to ACCEPT the wrongdoing first????

LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Not that I think you will admit to it... How many times has Halliburton and its subsideraries... beeen fined for cheating and defrauding the government on its contracts to the tune of many BILLIONS of dollars???

Non sequitur.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Not that I think you will admit to it... How many times has Halliburton and its subsideraries... beeen fined for cheating and defrauding the government on its contracts to the tune of many BILLIONS of dollars???

Non sequitur.

But Mikkeeeeeeee it does follow.... over and over and over and over.. just like your support for them over and over and over and your intransigence over and over and over

[Misternatural 0]

>TWO YEARS before he was even picked

Right,read it again,the war was in the works long before he was (back) in the white house.
again-motive supported.

>Proof-
Can only be born out during a proper investigation and trial; sworn testimony from CIA agents, Colin powell, Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, detailed Halliburton independantly audited balance, income and cash flow statements, record of insider trades, Investor relatiions, specific clients, Cheney's financials and pension /retirement package, his stock portfolio, his wife's and kids stock portfolios, his E mails and correspondence. ETC. All to be examined on a timeline. Loser of the case funds the trial. Fair enough?

Like law enforcement authorities always say; if a man is clean he has nothing to fear under scrutiny right?

>They've been in the military service contract business since the 60's,
Exactly, Halliburton KBR et al had long ago gotten a taste of military service contracts, it needs fresh War to fund that perticular subsidiary, now it has a guaranteed steady supply.

>Don't you think you need to PROVE wrongdoing, first?

Thank you for supporting my argument for a trial.

Cheney and Halliburton investigated and on trial would be the start of a country moving in the right direction when it comes to climate change, and energy policy for that matter.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Right,read it again,the war was in the works long before he was (back) in the white house.
again-motive supported.

How about some specific quotes, then, where he's talking about going to war with Saddam?

Quote

Can only be born out during a proper investigation and trial

So, you've got nothing? I agree.

Quote

Exactly, Halliburton KBR et al had long ago gotten a taste of military service contracts, it needs fresh War to fund that perticular subsidiary, now it has a guaranteed steady supply.

Uh huh... so why no 'fresh wars' during the 70s-80s? Proof of your point seems to be lacking, not that *that* is anything new in this discussion.

Quote

Cheney and Halliburton investigated and on trial would be the start of a country moving in the right direction when it comes to climate change, and energy policy for that matter.

So you're wanting to penalize a company for wanting to help *mitigate* CO2? Fits with the logic (for various definitions of 'logic') of the rest of your posts in the discussion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Misternatural 0]

The investigation of Dick Cheney needs to be initiated by special prosecutors. All a private citizen like myself can do is make an allegation based on evidence currently and publicly available, raise awareness, or file a civil suit and since I personally did not get injured physically or financially I could not file for damages. But hundreds of other people can if only they understood what happened to them and at least try to find out if Cheney profited from or colluded with Halliburton to initiate a war against a sovereign nation buy hocking the bullshit premise of WMD.

Not all of the information which could be used as evidence is available to the public, It needs to be subpoenaed, that should be obvious to you but I guess I have to explain it anyway.

Here is some additional reading with sources to answer your questions.
http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/warcontracts/cheney-halliburton.pdf
Look at the paragraph titled 1997

With regard to the Cato speech;
"Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions."

Also,
"The problem in part stems from the view by my former colleagues on Capitol Hill that sanctions are the low-cost option. It is the cheap, easy thing to do. You don't have to appropriate any taxpayer's money. You don’t send any young Americans into combat. We're able to take a firm, aggressive action and do something about the outrageous behavior of the offending government, and, many members believe, it does not cost a thing. But that's a shaky premise, at best. Even though that is the view you will hear bandied about in the cloakroom, it is a false notion that has serious consequences, in part because our sanctions policy oftentimes generates unanticipated consequences. It puts us in a position where a part of our government is pursuing objectives that are at odds with other objectives that the United States has with respect to a particular region."

Take these things into context along with the time frame and bear in mind that I said "the war was in the works" he was not vice president at the time so obviously he could not say anything directly about declaring war.

>>where he's talking about going to war with Saddam?

You can't be serious, I know you are not a foreign dignitary but at least think about what you said here.

>>So you're wanting to penalize a company for wanting to help *mitigate* CO2?

No the country moving in the right direction with regard to climate change would be to understand that the oil industry, in reference to Halliburton et al has an increasing requirement to drill for oil in foreign lands not under the control or influence of the US by likely colluding with the government to initiate military action because that is where a large portion of the known undeveloped oil now is. Understand that a corporation like Halliburton needs to be constantly drilling because that is chiefly the business they are in.
If you believe as Halliburton does that CO2 needs to be mitigated- reduce a key point source, the rate of drilling and subsequent burning of liquid fossil fuels.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

at least try to find out if Cheney profited from or colluded with Halliburton to initiate a war against a sovereign nation buy hocking the bullshit premise of WMD.

So, you're on a fishing expedition and don't actually have proof at all?

Quote

Not all of the information which could be used as evidence is available to the public, It needs to be subpoenaed, that should be obvious to you but I guess I have to explain it anyway.

If it's not available to the public, how do you know it exists in the first place?

Quote

With regard to the Cato speech;

"in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions."

^^^ So, the UN resolutions were to let Halliburton get the oil?

Quote

Take these things into context along with the time frame and bear in mind that I said "the war was in the works"

Yeah, about that - coming up with proof of that anytime soon?

Quote

he was not vice president at the time so obviously he could not say anything directly about declaring war.

So, again you have no proof?

Quote

>>where he's talking about going to war with Saddam?

You can't be serious, I know you are not a foreign dignitary but at least think about what you said here.

Yes, I know... asking someone to provide proof of their claims is so gauche.

Quote

>>So you're wanting to penalize a company for wanting to help *mitigate* CO2?

No the country moving in the right direction with regard to climate change would be to understand that the oil industry, in reference to Halliburton et al has an increasing requirement to drill for oil in foreign lands not under the control or influence of the US by likely colluding with the government to initiate military action because that is where a large portion of the known undeveloped oil now is. Understand that a corporation like Halliburton needs to be constantly drilling because that is chiefly the business they are in.

Except they're not - they didn't pick up the drilling segment (Dresser) until the merger in 98. In 2010, drilling and evalution brought in 40% of their income, with no breakdown between drilling and evaluation. Of that 40%, only 25% was in the Middle East/Asia.

Quote

If you believe as Halliburton does that CO2 needs to be mitigated- reduce a key point source, the rate of drilling and subsequent burning of liquid fossil fuels.

Good luck with that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

You may as well give up... no matter what the individuals in the Shrub Administration did .... like anything up to and including buggering everyone in cerrtain peoples family... certain posters will seek to defend Cheney and Bush till the day they die, all the while believing that god did indeed sanction them to use Haliburton as holy crusaders for all that is FAR RIGHT and therefore good.

[Misternatural 0]

>So, the UN resolutions were to let Halliburton get the oil

Had to do with weapons inspections as I recall, which is related to all the WMD crap.

Anyway.
Reasonable doubt my friend, reasonable doubt.
Remember what I said about our belief systems?
I don't expect you to believe me, your defensive resolve has more to do with your belief system than anything else as Amazon so astutely put it as she usually does.

I have presented some information, links, a timeline, the Halliburton website, gave you an interpretation of that information, Cheneys Manifesto- you read it....I am satisfied with that because I know I at least made you think about it.

That is all I can do, until there are subpoenas, make you think about it because at the end of the day Cheney still breathes fresh air, goes on fishing trips and gets to go hunting and spray his friends in the face with birdshot. Enjoying all of his money while his family is nice and secure. Meanwhile lots of people just got Jacked in that "deal" ie the war in Iraq, or unbelievably fucked up...the lucky ones are dead. Maybe you knew some of them.

Reasonable doubt... That is all we can do for now until people grow the nards to examine The dynamics of the initiation of that war and the related oil drilling industry. Cheney needs to be investigated, what are you worried about? He is a citizen, he gets due process, innocent until proven guilty.


Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.

Think about it, the perfect union of a corporation that deals with resource drilling and military services married to a vice president who was a former defense secretary, that clearly stated before he was elected that his company has an interest in that region.
You don't see a conflict of interest as related to the war in Iraq?

Good luck with that, because I know you are smart enough to see it.

At least you talked to me about this.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, the UN resolutions were to let Halliburton get the oil

Had to do with weapons inspections as I recall, which is related to all the WMD crap.

And you're planning to show how Halliburton was influencing that, right?

Quote

Anyway.
Reasonable doubt my friend, reasonable doubt.
Remember what I said about our belief systems?
I don't expect you to believe me, your defensive resolve has more to do with your belief system than anything else as Amazon so astutely put it as she usually does.

Amazon is spouting bullshit like she usually does.

Quote

I have presented some information, links, a timeline, the Halliburton website, gave you an interpretation of that information, Cheneys Manifesto- you read it....I am satisfied with that because I know I at least made you think about it.

You didn't show me anything I hadn't read before.

Quote

That is all I can do, until there are subpoenas, make you think about it because at the end of the day Cheney still breathes fresh air, goes on fishing trips and gets to go hunting and spray his friends in the face with birdshot. Enjoying all of his money while his family is nice and secure. Meanwhile lots of people just got Jacked in that "deal" ie the war in Iraq, or unbelievably fucked up...the lucky ones are dead. Maybe you knew some of them.

Yes, people who haven't been convicted of crimes do tend to spend their time out of jail ... I can see that disturbs you.

Quote

Reasonable doubt... That is all we can do for now until people grow the nards to examine The dynamics of the initiation of that war and the related oil drilling industry. Cheney needs to be investigated, what are you worried about? He is a citizen, he gets due process, innocent until proven guilty.

Given what you've provided as "proof", I have no worries that Cheney will ever spend a day in jail.

Quote

Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.

Think about it, the perfect union of a corporation that deals with resource drilling and military services married to a vice president who was a former defense secretary, that clearly stated before he was elected that his company has an interest in that region.
You don't see a conflict of interest as related to the war in Iraq?

Good luck with that, because I know you are smart enough to see it.

Now, all you need to do is prove that it happened like you think it did.

Quote

At least you talked to me about this.

Yup, I did.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Misternatural 0]

You notice I did not use the phrase reasonable suspicion.
I already have reasonable suspicion, in fact as you imply I have already reached a verdict.
You have already cemented a verdict as well, innocence.
As such neither of us would be suitable as Jurors in this case.

Cheney is not beyond reproach, he is still a US citizen subject to a trial by his peers.

We are talking about the court of public opinion at this point, it is normal for people to form an opinion pre trial based on the evidence at hand and their own belief system.

Have you noticed that I have not once asked you to provide proof of innocence? Do you know why? because it is ludicrous to do so AT THIS POINT.
You are asking me to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty? what, before his e mails are sequestered for example?

Do you have his e mails? were you a Washington insider at the time?

OK lets not fool ourselves this is just a tiny corner of discussion on the internet, It is not a court of law.

All I am asking is that he be investigated then brought to trial I think given the information available, that is reasonable.

That's all.

I say there is enough evidence for at least an investigation, you disagree.

Until this country starts to scrutinize the relationship between corporations in particular the oil industry and government officials we the people are going to continue to get screwed by the likes of Halliburton in addition to people like Goldman Sachs and Hank Paulsen, but that is another discussion.


Ok Back to the climate change debate, Why do you think Halliburton believes that "The world needs to immediately find ways to practically reduce it's CO2 emissions"
http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Ok Back to the climate change debate, Why do you think Halliburton believes that "The world needs to immediately find ways to practically reduce it's CO2 emissions"
http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768

1. They bought the bullshit CO2 line.

2. They see a way to make money off it.

3. Both.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Misternatural 0]

>They bought the bullshit CO2 line.

>They see a way to make money off it.

>Both.

I think the first choice is unlikely,and the middle one is correct.

Corporations are constantly trying to develop revenue based on what they have in their research and development cache also the technology and systems they have developed and proven, then sell that to customers and investors. That is what they are supposed to do; goods and services in exchange for revenue in the free marketplace.

The question now is do they actually believe that the CO2 emissions argument is bullshit or disregarding it altogether, and are gearing up for lucrative contracts anyway in taking advantage of government policy?

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>They bought the bullshit CO2 line.

>They see a way to make money off it.

>Both.

I think the first choice is unlikely,and the middle one is correct.

Corporations are constantly trying to develop revenue based on what they have in their research and development cache also the technology and systems they have developed and proven, then sell that to customers and investors. That is what they are supposed to do; goods and services in exchange for revenue in the free marketplace.

The question now is do they actually believe that the CO2 emissions argument is bullshit or disregarding it altogether, and are gearing up for lucrative contracts anyway in taking advantage of government policy?

Do you think that every company that's developing some sort of green tech are doing it because they're 'true believers', and why does it matter?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Misternatural 0]

Not all green tech taps into the public coffers. I am more interested in revealing the fraud therein. Halliburton's use of a technology they have been traditionally using to extract oil via CO2 injection and turning that overhead cost into a revenue generating service by raiding the public trust via a government program is a fraud in my opinion, especially if as many claim it does not solve any problems... something to keep an eye on, yes?

I remember lots of people railing on about govt. subsidized corn ethanol, CO2 sequestration as I described above should raise the same ire.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Sounds like you're more interested in "getting" Halliburton by any means possible.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,384]

>Sounds like you're more interested in "getting" Halliburton by any means possible.

Pot, meet kettle.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Sounds like you're more interested in "getting" Halliburton by any means possible.

Pot, meet kettle.

Awww...don't be so hard on yourself, Bill.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

>Sounds like you're more interested in "getting" Halliburton by any means possible.

Pot, meet kettle.

Awww...don't be so hard on yourself, Bill.

Nice, you've moved up to 5th Grade debating style now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Sounds like you're more interested in "getting" Halliburton by any means possible.

Pot, meet kettle.

Awww...don't be so hard on yourself, Bill.

Nice, you've moved up to 5th Grade debating style now.

And you're still in 3rd Grade.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Sounds like you're more interested in "getting" Halliburton by any means possible.

Pot, meet kettle.

Awww...don't be so hard on yourself, Bill.

Nice, you've moved up to 5th Grade debating style now.

And you're still in 3rd Grade.

I guess I was mistaken, you didn't move up at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Sounds like you're more interested in "getting" Halliburton by any means possible.

Pot, meet kettle.

Awww...don't be so hard on yourself, Bill.

Nice, you've moved up to 5th Grade debating style now.

And you're still in 3rd Grade.

I guess I was mistaken, you didn't move up at all.

Funny, that - neither did you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706