does anybody else find it disturbing that the first big (huge, actually) contract created by this war went to Haliburton, a company Dick Chaney used to be CEO for????
I think this move begins to reveal one of the major motivations behind this administrations push for war.
-m
Do I find it disturbing? Disturbing in the unexpected sense, no. Disturbing in the conspiratorial sense, very.
Worse is that the bidding was not open to anyone. Only the few companies, Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton, and several others are allowed to bid.
The named companies have dropped $2.8 million over the past two election cycles with 68% going to the Republicans. In return, they will be able to feed off the $1.5 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq.
Make no mistake, this country is run as an oligarchy. The ruse of the Bush administration is to claim that they're appointing "seasoned veterans of business and industry" to head the various departments and cabinet positions. The reality is that they're all in bed with the very same businesses they came out of, and will make a killing taking money from the federal treasury.
=)=///
Although I fundamentally agree with the lack of transparency of the process and the appearance/real conflict of interest, what are the other "real" alternatives. If you need an "american" car, you have three choices. If you need an energy/petroleum company from the states, how many choices? What if all of them contribute to political lobbying? Would you not put off all the oil wells on fire? Certainly, I will prefer that an american company does it than one based overseas.
It is true that there were only a few bidders, and not to play devil's advocate, but the names you produce are pretty much the standard players. Fleur-Daniels, Bechtel, etc. There are only so many company's that can do work on the hundred's of million/billion dollar scale of contracting. At least it went to your country's contractor. I'm sure there would be some grumbling if it went to and Ellis-Don, or PCL from Canada if they bid it!!
What I mean to say and I am clarifying a previous post that was just filled with venom and morbidity, was that the entire scenerio is not good. What can we say about this? we're in the middle of a gigantic war, this is big.
1. the first scenerio is that the entire life of Dick Chaney was planned. His school, friends, all jobs and so forth hand picked to place him in the spot he now has. That all events in his life culminated in his making a deal with someone that would provide him a healthy lifestyle off the men and women in the armed forces.
2. the second scenerio is that the life of Dick Chaney was much like you or I; in that he went to grammar school, high school, got good marks; went to college; got good marks; made friends, some of whom may have fenced; played basketball, etc, got his first job, his second job, promoted, bought house, family, kids; job again and invested in an industry that is surely designed to turn a profit one of these days. Which is what a business man or woman does.
The biggest industry in the world is called the Military Industrial Complex, we all are aware of them. They make the materials that are used in warfare, many people invest in these companies, or were chairmen or women in these companies. In times of peace they are looked at in a more favorable light, but when there is a war, they are looked at in a much less favorable light, and the people involved are often abused for being involved with those companies.
Last edited by 135711; 03-26-2003 at 11:11 PM.
135711 I missed comlety what you were trying to say. Can you clarify your above post for me?
How about the fact that Chaney is drawing a cool million a year in deferred payments from his old company WHILE HE IS IN THE WHITEHOUSE for four years! He could have at least made and effort to postpone the money untill after his "public service"
The revolving door between the US military industrial complex and the US government is well established, and has been for years. Some are better at making it spin for them trhan others. Chaney is making that sucker whirl!
I had heard some UK companies wanted to make a bid but couldn't since it was a closed (private?) bidding. Laws in the UK prevented them to bid. I have to agree with edew on this one. Makes you wonder how long has this (the war/rebuilding/etc.) been in the works.
But I'm sure Haliburton, realizing where their money comes from, and wanting to give back, will kick in some profit-sharing from their lucrative ventures with the families of the American and British soldiers, and Iraqi civilians whose lives were written off as part of the bidding process.
No?
darius
different answer: there's no answer, the whole thing is beyond belief, and is totally absurd, with seemingly no answer, or if there is one, no one wants it, so we're sort of on our own now.
Last edited by 135711; 03-26-2003 at 05:47 PM.
Why do you need an american company??? Why would you prefer an American company??Originally posted by JEC
Although I fundamentally agree with the lack of transparency of the process and the appearance/real conflict of interest, what are the other "real" alternatives. If you need an "american" car, you have three choices. If you need an energy/petroleum company from the states, how many choices? What if all of them contribute to political lobbying? Would you not put off all the oil wells on fire? Certainly, I will prefer that an american company does it than one based overseas.
If you are going to insist on an American oil company, and an American Military transition govt., you should at least acknowledge that we are being imperial.
-m
A. We are not an oligarchy, that is a bit far stretched
B. I prefer American stufff over otehr because it is putting back into our economy, not the UKs, or Frances.
C. This is going to sound wrong, but, why not? These companies help Bush get elected, why not get seom pay off? I don't hink it is wrong for Bush to say, "you helped, I'll give you first...maybe only... dibs on this contract.
-Kevin
Nice encapsulation:
A.We are not an oligarchy, that is a bit far stretched
NOT YET, but it appears it may be in the making. I know this is very politically incorrect, but it has an appeal during times of stress and war. From the time we turned the millinium, there were a number of things that had gone sort of kapluy: the economy took a big hit in 1992, it was down down down; the religous right went under all the kids who were into the new southern religion left it after two of the big names were investigated for fraud, leaving thousands of people dissillusioned; then we took another whack when Pres. Clinton was caught red-handed with a female other than his wife; then the large corporations started laying off by the thousands and we started to see grown men and women tossed out of jobs and homes and a weird migration took hold of the country, then we experienced several natural disasters across the globe, and no-one could keep up. So, that's when people turn to strong leadership. They have to have a leader who can pull the reins in on everything and cause it to fall into order.
B. I prefer American stufff over otehr because it is putting back into our economy, not the UKs, or Frances.
I have to agree here, we need to buy American, we looked down our noses at 'home grown vegetables' for so long, we all became wine snobs.
C. This is going to sound wrong, but, why not? These companies help Bush get elected, why not get seom pay off? I don't hink it is wrong for Bush to say, "you helped, I'll give you first...maybe only... dibs on this.
This I reallly can't agree with, whatever a company does for a political leader, the Pres. can't accept anything.
I worked only for a small city government; lots of people offered me bribes, i had to be very polite but pass on it. Oh, my best bribe was when this little lady came in around christmas time and tried to offer me a gigantic gallon of food sauce. I still don't know what she wanted, the entire office nearly exploded on that one. I think they still have the bottle somewhere.
Well...it probably sounds wrong because it is wrong. Or at least illegal.Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
{snip}
This is going to sound wrong, but, why not? These companies help Bush get elected, why not get seom pay off? I don't hink it is wrong for Bush to say, "you helped, I'll give you first...maybe only... dibs on this contract.
Theoretically, the process of determining who should get a contract is supposed to be based on who can best perform the contract to the most benefit to the country (i.e. lowest cost with best result). Not on who gave the most to the political party in control of the country.
Not saying that's what happened, but if it did, then it shouldn't have.
--Philistine
I am unaware of the total story regarding this contract, however, many public institutions, including departments have a prequalification process for contractors to go through prior to being allowed to bid something. For expample, if you are building a new $100M hospital, you don't want contractors who specialize in house construction bidding it, and vice versa. You put out a notice of prequalification, in which contractors send in their company's resume for review. An Architectural firm/Owner then chooses those companies which are appropriate for this work. It sounds like a bunch of American companies qualified to bid the project....case closed. Why would a Canadian, French, or Russian company bid an American contract, initiated by the American people? If an American company is purposely denied in the pre-qualification process, and feels confident he can prove his companies qualifications for that work, I'm sure they can make a complaint to the appropriate authority. Are any other contractors complaining?
Just a second point. Most public sectors (at least here Ontario) make it favorable for work to be completed by a resident company of the province, and to a lesser extent the country. This is just standard. When my previous company opened up an office in states, there were several stringent rules that had to be followed, that insure America's interests were protected. That sounds fair to me.
If a few palms were greased along the way on this big contract....well...thats sometimes how business proceeds. If anyone thinks this is something new.......
But is there any proof that something illegal has occured? If so, why has there been no investigation now. If not, whats the big deal?
Nothing wrong with mutual back-scratching. But be honest about it and say it to the public. Let's hear Bush and Cheney say, "I'm giving this to Halliburton and Bechtel and Fluor and.... because they dropped a load of money on us so that we can win the election."Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
A. We are not an oligarchy, that is a bit far stretched
B. I prefer American stufff over otehr because it is putting back into our economy, not the UKs, or Frances.
C. This is going to sound wrong, but, why not? These companies help Bush get elected, why not get seom pay off? I don't hink it is wrong for Bush to say, "you helped, I'll give you first...maybe only... dibs on this contract.
Otherwise, pretending it's all working within the scope of the normal bidding procedure is just hypocrisy. Makes me wish for the good old days of BJs in the whitehouse.
=)=///
Because my taxes (US) are paying for it ... If the world (UN) was supporting or organizing it, it would be different (despite that we pay an increadibly disproportionate portion of the UN budget). No, I don't believe in a military govts. but in democracy.Originally posted by epeemike81
Why do you need an american company??? Why would you prefer an American company??
If you are going to insist on an American oil company, and an American Military transition govt., you should at least acknowledge that we are being imperial. -m
well, you might not believe in military govts, but that is what is currently slated for post war iraq.Originally posted by JEC
Because my taxes (US) are paying for it ... If the world (UN) was supporting or organizing it, it would be different (despite that we pay an increadibly disproportionate portion of the UN budget). No, I don't believe in a military govts. but in democracy.
so, because the US is paying to invade iraq, we should get to reap the rewards??? ah, imperialism at its best. So much for "helping the iraqi people". the oil represents the "future of the iraqi people", but we will have a US company pumping the profits right out of iraq. you can't have your cake and eat it too. is this a war to help the iraqi people, or a war of imperialism to help US companies?
what we SHOULD get is sanctions from the UN for conducting an illegal war. Unfortunately, they don't have the balls.
As for us paying a disproportionate amt of the UN budget, I think you should recheck your facts.
-m
Last edited by epeemike81; 03-27-2003 at 12:35 PM.
Heh. And exactly *how* much does the US owe the UN? Last I heard, their tab was running pretty high, and the Americans seem to have no intention of paying it off.
Why should the UN [a body opposed to the war in Iraq] pay when the US has decided to go along without them. The US has decided to goto war and therefore must foot its share of the cost. As the was has been done in the name of the Iraqi people rather than the interests of the US oil companoes then why would the US governemt want to ensure that as few outside-US companies as possible get a share in the spoils. Note that outside-US companies includes Iraq itself. Rumsfeld has been quoted as saying that the US should attack Iraq to ensure it's supply of oil, as thisis the case why should anyone believe that he wants nothing more than to free the Iraqi people? I confess that I don't know what Blair see the UK getting out of this as I'm sure that the big US oil companies will do their utmost to ensure only they get access to the Iraqi fields.
I am The Hairy King of the Scots. You may kiss my Royal Seal.
Posting Permissions
