Support NeoGAF

[Ponn]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has signed on Halliburton (NYSE:HAL - news) to do nearly $5 billion in new work in Iraq under a giant logistics contract that has so far earned the Texas-based firm $9.1 billion, the Army said on Wednesday.

Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois, said the military signed the work order with Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root in May.

The new deal, worth $4.97 billion over the next year, was not made public when it was signed because the Army did not consider such an announcement necessary, she said.

"We did not announce this task order as this is really not something we ever really thought about doing," said Theis.

Halliburton, which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995-2000, has been under scrutiny for its contracts in Iraq and several U.S. government agencies are looking into whether it overcharged for some work.

A Halliburton spokeswoman said the new spending package was approved by the Army after the company submitted estimated costs for the year based on services requested.

The $4.97 billion figure represented the maximum under the contract, and the actual amount could be lower since the Army doled out the work on an incremental basis, she said.

The new contract is about $1 billion more than the company earned under last year's services contract.

In March, a former KBR employee and a Kuwaiti citizen were indicted for defrauding the U.S. government of more than $3.5 million by inflating the cost of fuel tankers.

The new work order, called Task Order 89, is valid until April 30, 2006, and went ahead despite critical military audits released last week by Democratic opponents of KBR's Iraq work.

A top U.S. Army procurement official said last week Halliburton's deals in Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had ever seen, a claim KBR strongly rejected as "political rhetoric."

KBR was awarded the logistical contract with the military in December 2001, covering tasks from feeding U.S. troops to delivering mail, doing laundry and building barracks.

U.S. Senate critics of Halliburton were quick to denounce the new deal.

"At this point, why don't we just hand Halliburton the keys to the U.S. Treasury and tell them to turn off the lights when they are done," Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said in a statement.

Halliburton 5 Billion

Shake that money maker. I just picture Dick Cheney walking around the white house singing "It's good to be a gangsta"

 

[COCKLES]

Sickening.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

This is why you invest in businesses like Halliburton: morally, their policies are questionable, but financially, you're in good hands. I'm against the Iraq war, but for blatant government handouts to Halliburton. No matter what happens, I win.

 

[Groder Mullet]

Halliburton is one of the only companies in the world who can handle that sort of work.

 

[Ponn]

Halliburton is one of the only companies in the world who can handle that sort of work.

Well yes, thats what HALLIBURTON keeps saying. Then again we will never know since they keep getting no-bid government contracts.

 

[Mupepe]

If it makes anyone else feel better, I work for Halliburton. Haha.

BTW, they're fucking HUGE! There are not any companies to my knowledge that can match it's size.

 

[Groder Mullet]

Well yes, thats what HALLIBURTON keeps saying. Then again we will never know since they keep getting no-bid government contracts.

Then please name another American contractor who can provide the same services at a comparable price.

 

[Flynn]

If it makes anyone else feel better, I work for Halliburton. Haha.

BTW, they're fucking HUGE! There are not any companies to my knowledge that can match it's size.

We pretty much all work for Halliburton.

 

[Bluecondor]

Halliburton sounds like the EA of the defense industry.

I wonder if there are Halliburton fan boys in the Defense Department - you know - guys who will trash a Northrup consultant or product just because it doesn't come from the big H.

It seems like Dick Chaney is Halliburton's equivalent of John Madden. Only instead of Madden saying "Where'd that truck come from!?" 500 times a year, Chaney just mfs anyone who gets in his way.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Halliburton is one of the only companies in the world who can handle that sort of work.

Then please name another American contractor who can provide the same services at a comparable price.

... Oookay

Carry on.

 

[Mupepe]

... Oookay

Carry on.

Good god, then just name another one in the world for pete's sake. Not trying to be a bitch, but damn, stop nitpicking and beating around the bush people.

"I pointed something out, give me a fucking cookie"

BTW, aren't only company's from the "Coalition of the Willing" allowed to bid on contracts? I dunno if that ever went through or not.

 

[capslock]

Alcatel can, but then again, they are french.

 

[Ulairi]

... Oookay

Carry on.

You can't.

 

[xsarien]

Then please name another American contractor who can provide the same services at a comparable price.

I don't think I'll get an answer back if I submit a proposal to any one of those companies and ask "What would you charge the government?"

Funny enough, that's the government's job. And the argument that KBR/Halliburton is the only company in the world that can possibly be qualified to handle the job is specious beyond measure.

 

[Mandark]

Yes, Virginia, there are other corporations that could do this sort of thing. Bechtel, Parsons, Worley, Fluor, etc. Halliburton may be the best equipped to handle this stuff; I don't know.

The real issue is the assumption that the government should be outsourcing all this logistical stuff, all to one company. There may or may not be some efficiency plus, but there are some obvious minuses.

It creates a relationship where there is one buyer for this kind of service, and either one or very few sellers. If one company repeatedly gets the huge contracts and becomes the only player able to handle jobs like this, then the government is dealing with a monopoly.

There are two major problems with this situation. First, the government has very little leverage, and the taxpayers get soaked. Secondly, the government relies on this corporation, and feels the need to prop it up (just ask John McCain about Boeing).

Then there is the political aspect. Legislators now spend very large chunks of taxpayer money through the awarding of contracts. The contracts are bid on by corporations that make large political donations. A strong lobbying presence for a corporation means political pressure to create the situations that result in contracts. If a CEO's company gets more contracts during a war, and he has some political leverage...

I'd rather have a government agency, with all the possibilities of stereotypical inefficiency, handle stuff like this. It would at least be directly answerable to the people who represent me, and I'm pretty sure it could get the job done. We're the US of fucking A. We can deliver our own mail.

 

[ManDudeChild]

You can't.

Well I WAS just addressing what I saw as support for the way the U.S. operated during the early days (what with the picking and pushing out a lot of countries bidding the for some "unknown" reason picking the one that happened to have Dick He..Cheney as a former CEO) of the whole "war on terror" in Iraq. As I saw it was somewhat of an arrogant comment, but since at least two of you want to act like children.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_E...gineering/Geologic_and_Petroleum_Engineering/

Now as said by others, maybe they're really efficient but ... well Mandark covered that side quite well.

 

[Mupepe]

...at least two of you want to act like children.

I'll assume you're referring to me as one of those, I just asked you to stop nitpicking and name a damn company. BTW, thank you for naming a company, I was actually interested to know also

P.S. If you weren't referring to me, my bad

We pretty much all work for Halliburton.

That was deep...
</sarcasm> =P

 

[tetsuoxb]

Yes, Virginia, there are other corporations that could do this sort of thing. Bechtel, Parsons, Worley, Fluor, etc. Halliburton may be the best equipped to handle this stuff; I don't know.

The real issue is the assumption that the government should be outsourcing all this logistical stuff, all to one company. There may or may not be some efficiency plus, but there are some obvious minuses.

It creates a relationship where there is one buyer for this kind of service, and either one or very few sellers. If one company repeatedly gets the huge contracts and becomes the only player able to handle jobs like this, then the government is dealing with a monopoly.

There are two major problems with this situation. First, the government has very little leverage, and the taxpayers get soaked. Secondly, the government relies on this corporation, and feels the need to prop it up (just ask John McCain about Boeing).

However, if you start to consider that efficiency is at a premium in a war zone, one contractor makes more and more sense.

I love the "fucking halliburton" crowd. It is like they stole Terri Schaivo's stomach tube and connected it to the worlds largest vat of haterade. The thought process is incredibly simple:

1. Cheney is VP
2. Cheney was Halliburton CEO
3. ????????
4. Halliburton gets contracts
5. FUCK HALLIBURTON!

The only problem is that 3 is such a misconstrued topic that people just believe what they want to believe. Alot of the "nobid" stuff was actually because there were no other bidders. However, that is irrelevant to most.

I just wish people would be clear with what they mean when they rip on Halliburton.

1) The war is bullshit.
2) Republicans are crooks.
3) Big businesses are crooks.

However, I doubt that those who are constantly riffing on Halliburton really want to have an argument on the merits behind their ideas.

 

[Mupepe]

However, if you start to consider that efficiency is at a premium in a war zone, one contractor makes more and more sense.

I love the "fucking halliburton" crowd. It is like they stole Terri Schaivo's stomach tube and connected it to the worlds largest vat of haterade. The thought process is incredibly simple:

1. Cheney is VP
2. Cheney was Halliburton CEO
3. ????????
4. Halliburton gets contracts
5. FUCK HALLIBURTON!

The only problem is that 3 is such a misconstrued topic that people just believe what they want to believe. Alot of the "nobid" stuff was actually because there were no other bidders. However, that is irrelevant to most.

I just wish people would be clear with what they mean when they rip on Halliburton.

1) The war is bullshit.
2) Republicans are crooks.
3) Big businesses are crooks.

However, I doubt that those who are constantly riffing on Halliburton really want to have an argument on the merits behind their ideas.

IAWTP

 

[Outlaw Pro Mod]

The $4.97 billion figure represented the maximum under the contract,

Interesting. It's possible that if the estimate for the project went over..say...$5 billion, the government would then be required to get additional bids. This happens very often in the construction field - general contractors know a set price that they must stay under so that they will be guaranteed the award of the project.

 

[ManDudeChild]

However, if you start to consider that efficiency is at a premium in a war zone, one contractor makes more and more sense.

I love the "fucking halliburton" crowd. It is like they stole Terri Schaivo's stomach tube and connected it to the worlds largest vat of haterade. The thought process is incredibly simple:

1. Cheney is VP
2. Cheney was Halliburton CEO
3. ????????
4. Halliburton gets contracts
5. FUCK HALLIBURTON!

The only problem is that 3 is such a misconstrued topic that people just believe what they want to believe. Alot of the "nobid" stuff was actually because there were no other bidders. However, that is irrelevant to most.

I just wish people would be clear with what they mean when they rip on Halliburton.

1) The war is bullshit.
2) Republicans are crooks.
3) Big businesses are crooks.

However, I doubt that those who are constantly riffing on Halliburton really want to have an argument on the merits behind their ideas.

I doubt it would even be as big an issue (I mean the CEO while certainly something that should be addressed in the media a bit more. As far as digging to see how deep it all goes) if it wasn't for the unethical actions of the company and how it's actions hurt the average joe. I mean this is a company that has been tight with the U.S. government long before Cheney's current status. That, coupled with it seeming like the contracts themselves were used as either a "fuck you" to countries or a tool to help political relations . Well I'm sure you can see why there are so many comments on the contracting in general.

http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?list=type&type=15
http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Oct_04/301004_halliburton.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12476

The Cheney thing (which I admit even I think of first when I think of the company) is just the "icing" or so to speak on a very bad cake.

 

[tetsuoxb]

I doubt it would even be as big an issue (I mean the CEO while certainly something that should be addressed in the media a bit more. As far as digging to see how deep it all goes) if it wasn't for the unethical actions of the company and how it's actions hurt the average joe. I mean this is a company that has been tight with the U.S. government long before Cheney's current status.

http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?list=type&type=15
http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Oct_04/301004_halliburton.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12476

The Cheney thing (which I admit even I think of first when I think of the company) is just the "icing" or so to speak on a very bad cake.

Companies make it a sport to fuck the government, from medicare fraud all the way up to the oil tanker mess...but this is something that comes with the territory. You wont find many 100% honest businesses doing business with the government. Sad as that is to say.

However, Halliburton (Kellogg Brown & Root included) has historically done a better job that most for the US Government. Their work in the oil fields after Gulf War 1 was absolutely spectacular.

I went to a Ralph Nader speech during the 2000 campaign where he railed against the military industrial complex for a good hour and a half. That is all well and good, as were the student protestors who repeatedly tried to get George HW Bush to cop to Iran contra at a student speech, but the fact of the matter is we need the military industrial complex.

If you are going to be a superpower, logistical services are either going to have to come from the private sector or the public sector. I, personally, am not comfortable with the government essentially starting its own Halliburton sized company to handle everything in house. Government workers have a reputation to be lazy bueracrats? Why? Lack of a profit motive for one. So if you accept that these kind of wide reaching war time services must come from the private sector, then you are back to square one. Companies make it a sport to fuck the government. That doesnt make them bad, it makes them normal.

I think the simple fact is that Halliburton is probably the best company to do the job; and even if they werent, every other company with the size and ability to handle a contract of that size is going to engage in a bit of sodomizing uncle sam.

As far as Alcatel etc, I would rather have an American company spending that money employing Americans and returning the profits to their predominantly American shareholders, than shipping that money overseas. Just remember everyone, Halliburon employs Americans, and most of the Shareholders are American. The American taxpayer money stays in America. If you dont like that (redistribution of wealth to the rich) then that is a whole can bag of worms.

 

[tetsuoxb]

btw: that war profiteering site is absolute BS. The start of the raytheon passage basically condeming the company for making munitions and blaming them for civilian deaths says it all.

 

[ManDudeChild]

I'm seriously not trying to de-rail the thread (just thinking out loud), but I think the perception of "keep America money in America for Americans.... America!" is kind of sad. I of course understand the why (and even can agree with it in this world we live in), but sometimes I can't help but wonder if Nationality in itself is inherently evil for a species. Albeit a nessesary one at least at this point in time. Anyway, I'm not trying to start up anything on this comment, just thinking out loud.

 

[tetsuoxb]

I'm seriously not trying to de-rail the thread (just thinking out loud), but I think the perception of "keep America money in America for Americans.... America!" is kind of sad. I of course understand the why (and even can agree with it in this world we live in), but sometimes I can't help but wonder if Nationality in itself is inherently evil for a species. Albeit a nessesary one at least at this point in time. Anyway, I'm not trying to start up anything on this comment, just thinking out loud.

No it isnt sad. I do not feel that my tax dollars should be awarded to overseas corporations. I think that is a completely fair thing to say. My tax dollars should not be paying for the salaries of employees of a large French organization over an American one unless there is a damn good reason for it. FUCK HALLIBURTON is not a damn good reason.

 

[ManDudeChild]

No it isnt sad. I do not feel that my tax dollars should be awarded to overseas corporations. I think that is a completely fair thing to say. My tax dollars should not be paying for the salaries of employees of a large French organization over an American one unless there is a damn good reason for it. FUCK HALLIBURTON is not a damn good reason.

That isn't what I meant at all.

btw: that war profiteering site is absolute BS. The start of the raytheon passage basically condeming the company for making munitions and blaming them for civilian deaths says it all.

It's going to the extreme I agree (most article writers do have a pre-set bias after all), but it does pose the question of if the person that makes the weapon is in part responsible. But the problem with even TRYING to venture into that territory is that you easily find yourself on the same sides of the fence as other forms of extreme such as, "ban all guns forever!" vs. "don't ban all guns make them law free." So it's shakey at best I think... but still is valid in a small way ... very small.

 

[tetsuoxb]

That isn't what I meant at all.



It's going to the extreme I agree (most article writers do have a pre-set bias after all), but it does pose the question of if the person that makes the weapon is in part responsible. But the problem with even TRYING to venture into that territory is that you easily find yourself on the same sides of the fence as other forms of extreme such as, "ban all guns forever!" vs. "don't ban all guns make them law free." So it's shakey at best I think... but still is valid in a small way ... very small.

Considering the one of the lead designers of the JDAM guidance system is a member of my family, I can 100% say that he has absolutely no interest or responsibility in killing civilians. He worked day and night during development to make sure the weapon goes exactly where it is supposed to, thus minimizing civilian danger.

AND I understand what you mean about nationality; however, those against nationality are either annarchists, or hypocrits (meaning they are also against globalization). What you meant to say is that you are against nationalism. That is a pretty legit stance to take, provided you can draw a clear line between what constitutes nationalism and what consitutes patriotism. I am glad you see/agree/understand my point on tax dollars.

 

[Mupepe]

I'm seriously not trying to de-rail the thread (just thinking out loud), but I think the perception of "keep America money in America for Americans.... America!" is kind of sad. I of course understand the why (and even can agree with it in this world we live in), but sometimes I can't help but wonder if Nationality in itself is inherently evil for a species. Albeit a nessesary one at least at this point in time. Anyway, I'm not trying to start up anything on this comment, just thinking out loud.

It might be bad for a species, but not thinking in that context is irresponsible for our nation. If there is a company well suited to do the job, why would we even consider a foreign company, much less a foreign company from a nation that was against our efforts? That would basically be "Well, company A is well suited as is company B, but we'd rather support Nigerian workers instead of American workers." That is one of the things I really liked that Bush did, it tooks lots of balls (and arrogance) to stand up and say that only company's from the Coalition of the Willing would be able to bid for these contracts. I was against the war, but no matter which way you spin it, it was an effort that cost our money and our soldiers lives, why should some country that decided not to support us benefit from our loss? There is no way I'll ever understand the logic to the contrary. I'll admit my stubborness right now. :lol

Edit: Damn, so late, I really should be working right now.

 

[Mandark]

If you think efficiency is very important in a warzone, then you should be terrified of creating a monopoly where a single huge contractor has very little incentive to be as efficient as it can be. I've seen nothing to suggest that handing all this stuff to an outside contractor has made the war effort more efficient, or would do so in general terms (though I haven't been looking).

We know that Halliburton has committed accounting fraud.

We know that Halliburton is being investigated for allegedly spreading around $180 million of bribe money in Nigeria. ""We understand from the ongoing governmental and other investigations that payments may have been made to Nigerian officials." They deny bribing anyone.

We know that Halliburton used a Cayman-based subsidiary to do business in Iran.

We know that Pentagon audits showed Halliburton overcharging by as much as $212 million for fuel imported into Iraq.

And yes, the bidding process is an issue. Other corporations complained in 2003 when Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract by the Army Corps of Engineers, with a $7 billion maximum. Later, the Corps announced bidding for a $1 billion dollar contract, but set such a late decision date that the timetable for the contract would only be feasable for Halliburton, since they were already in Iraq.

Why should we trust Halliburton with huge contracts like this? Why does this need to be outsourced, and to a single corporation?

 

[Andy787]

This is why you invest in businesses like Halliburton: morally, their policies are questionable, but financially, you're in good hands. I'm against the Iraq war, but for blatant government handouts to Halliburton. No matter what happens, I win.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. At least since yesterday.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Considering the one of the lead designers of the JDAM guidance system is a member of my family, I can 100% say that he has absolutely no interest or responsibility in killing civilians. He worked day and night during development to make sure the weapon goes exactly where it is supposed to, thus minimizing civilian danger.

AND I understand what you mean about nationality; however, those against nationality are either annarchists, or hypocrits (meaning they are also against globalization). What you meant to say is that you are against nationalism. That is a pretty legit stance to take, provided you can draw a clear line between what constitutes nationalism and what consitutes patriotism. I am glad you see/agree/understand my point on tax dollars.

I'm not talking about interest. I doubt anyone is "interested" in killing civilians, and I'm not saying the member of your family IS responsible. I'm saying that i can understand how the statement could be made. If you read my post you'll see I state it's very shakey ground to stand on.

As for nationality, yes nationalism would be the correct term.

This is why you invest in businesses like Halliburton: morally, their policies are questionable, but financially, you're in good hands. I'm against the Iraq war, but for blatant government handouts to Halliburton. No matter what happens, I win.

Since this quote was brought back up, I'd like to know how a company with questionable policies is a safe place for finances. I'm not talking about Halliburton specifically, but just in generally. OpinionatedCyborg, are you saying that it would have been good to invest in Enron? In hindsight of course.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Halliburton is one of the only companies in the world who can handle that sort of work.

WTF are you talking about. They hire fucking goons to come out here for pennies. They are paying high school dropouts like 40k (and up more risk more money) a year with no health or retirement benefits. Truly KBR hires the dregs of society. They hire from the lowest 10th percentile so they can insure the work will be fucked up so they can (that's right) get another contract to fix the toilets they didn't get right in the first place.

I would have bought that line maybe 2 years ago when they first pulled the rugs over my eyes but today. No sir. If you think they are sending highly skilled techs out here then you are wrong it is mostly unskilled labor for pennies. And don't get me started on the TCNs that they bring from India and the Philippines and pay them a wopping 50 dollars a day.

Yeah they are the only company that could do that.

 

[Shinobi]

The new deal, worth $4.97 billion over the next year, was not made public when it was signed because the Army did not consider such an announcement necessary, she said.

That figures.

 

[Groder Mullet]

Well I WAS just addressing what I saw as support for the way the U.S. operated during the early days (what with the picking and pushing out a lot of countries bidding the for some "unknown" reason picking the one that happened to have Dick He..Cheney as a former CEO) of the whole "war on terror" in Iraq. As I saw it was somewhat of an arrogant comment, but since at least two of you want to act like children.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_E...gineering/Geologic_and_Petroleum_Engineering/

Now as said by others, maybe they're really efficient but ... well Mandark covered that side quite well.

Your link showed companies involved in geology and engineering. Halliburton is far more encompassing than that. They provide food services, etc. for the troops. From what I understand, Alcatel was the only other comparable company. Why give a foreign company a contract when you can keep it at home?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Why give a foreign company a contract when you can keep it at home?

Ha that's funny. A great deal of KRR employees are foreign so the nickels that they make go to some second or third world country. I guess the lions share comes back to states but even in Iraq it's cheaper to not buy american.

I just have a problem with Halliburton because they hire a bunch of fucknuts that do more to get us fucking shot at than not.

 

[AB 101]

These threads are like a broken record.

 

[djtiesto]

Halliburton sounds like the EA of the defense industry.

I wonder if there are Halliburton fan boys in the Defense Department - you know - guys who will trash a Northrup consultant or product just because it doesn't come from the big H.

It seems like Dick Chaney is Halliburton's equivalent of John Madden. Only instead of Madden saying "Where'd that truck come from!?" 500 times a year, Chaney just mfs anyone who gets in his way.

:lol :lol

 

[Ponn]

These threads are like a broken record.

Well, if it wouldn't keep happening....

I'm pretty split in politics. The liberal side of me sees the shit going on here and just cries. The other side is actually in awe and admiration for how blantant and in your face this government has been with its dirty dealings and people on the republican side defend it even more and no one even cares to do anything about it. It's really a bit scary and I wonder how much further we are gonna slip.

 

[AB 101]

Bagging on Halliburton is fine and dandy.

But how about a sticky thread or its own sub forum or something?

Maybe an anti Bush forum.

At least if everything is in one place, that would be cool.

Would keep from polluting all the other threads in the off-topic forum.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

Bagging on Halliburton is fine and dandy.

But how about a sticky thread or its own sub forum or something?

Maybe an anti Bush forum.

At least if everything is in one place, that would be cool.

Would keep from polluting all the other threads in the off-topic forum.

Just a suggestion.

I didn't know the OT forum was some Pro-Bush rally and those of us who disagree with our government's actions were just trolling.

And why have Mandark's and Tommie's last few posts gone completely ignored? Hmm.

 

[bob_arctor]

I didn't know the OT forum was some Pro-Bush rally and those of us who disagree with our government's actions were just trolling.

And why have Mandark's and Tommie's last few posts gone completely ignored? Hmm.

I think he meant that there are so many Bush threads that maybe they'd be better served in their own forum. Kinda like Gaming/OT is split. And Mandark's thread was ignored because it makes too much sense.

 

[DarienA]

The whole American money should stay in America sensibility kills me and I really think on a larger scale hurts various countries international relationships....... we don't live on this planet in one country alone in a vacuum....

 

[bob_arctor]

The whole American money should stay in America sensibility kills me and I really think on a larger scale hurts various countries international relationships....... we don't live on this planet in one country alone in a vacuum....

Interestingly, CNN had some random poll along these lines and 96% of those polled disagreed that we don't live on this planet in one country alone in a vacuum. The other 4% apparently had access to globes.

Edit: I'm actually not being a prick here, this was on last night. Something about U.S. using other companies outside of the U.S.--basically what's being discussed here, more or less.

 

[DarienA]

Interestingly, CNN had some random poll along these lines and 96% of those polled disagreed that we don't live on this planet in one country alone in a vacuum. The other 4% apparently had access to globes.

Edit: I'm actually not being a prick here, this was on last night. Something about U.S. using other companies outside of the U.S.--basically what's being discussed here, more or less.

:lol Oh no, I do realize that "nationalism" (is that what it is called?) is all the rage right now... I just don't agree with the philosophy... cause when the aliens come they won't care what country we're from!

 

[bob_arctor]

:lol Oh no, I do realize that "nationalism" (is that what it is called?) is all the rage right now... I just don't agree with the philosophy... cause when the aliens come they won't care what country we're from!

I think it's actually called "jingoism" and yeah, it pretty much sucks ass. As soon as me and the wife saw the poll on screen, we were both like "100% will say "USA ONLY". We were off a little though.

 

[Phoenix]

Halliburton is one of the only companies in the world who can handle that sort of work.

If you keep getting the bids, and no one else does - then of course you'd be the only ones to be able to do it because the other businesses wouldn't be in business.

 

[ronito]

However, if you start to consider that efficiency is at a premium in a war zone, one contractor makes more and more sense.

I love the "fucking halliburton" crowd. It is like they stole Terri Schaivo's stomach tube and connected it to the worlds largest vat of haterade. The thought process is incredibly simple:

1. Cheney is VP
2. Cheney was Halliburton CEO
3. ????????
4. Halliburton gets contracts
5. FUCK HALLIBURTON!

The only problem is that 3 is such a misconstrued topic that people just believe what they want to believe. Alot of the "nobid" stuff was actually because there were no other bidders. However, that is irrelevant to most.

I just wish people would be clear with what they mean when they rip on Halliburton.

1) The war is bullshit.
2) Republicans are crooks.
3) Big businesses are crooks.

However, I doubt that those who are constantly riffing on Halliburton really want to have an argument on the merits behind their ideas.

That's all well and good and all, until you get to the question of ethics. Let me share a few personal examples:

I worked for one of the major mutual funds companies in their IT. We had a huge project to do. Our director was new and had once owned a consulting company. He had left it, and cut off all financial ties with it. When we ramped up the project, he hired a bunch of consultants from his old company to help with the project. You know what happened? Due to the SEC being suspicious about a conflict of interest the director was fired by the company.

Another example. Two years ago I worked on a huge project for a leading Satelitte Communications compnay. The project I was on was staffed by one of the big 5 consulting firms. Now that project was outrageously over budget and behind schedule. Now the SEC is launching an investigation into the relationship between the CEO and the a high ranking official in the consulting firm, citing a possible conflict of interest. Should they find something inappropriate you can bet that the CEO will be forced out of the company.

So if the SEC is holding publicly shared companies' feet over the fire over these things, why do we not care about the Haliburton-Cheney connection? While the projects and companies were large, they are nothing compared to the contracts Haliburton gets. I realize that the SEC has nothing to do with government projects, but you catch my drift. If these companies have to play by the rules of conflict of interest, how much moreso should the government?

Also that whole "Haliburton is the only company that can do this." tripe doesn't fly by me. While I was at GE I know they were talking about starting up a business unit like this, and with GE's size and its assets it'd be hard to beat them at it. Keeping it "national"? Last year a senator proposed a bill stating that any tax funded projects would not be allowed to outsource their development to India or other countries. The bill was shot down furiously, the Bush administration was one of the major proponents of the shooting.

Lastly, I can understand that if Haliburton was the best fitted company they get the job. However, the government should really make this known before hand. Stand up in C-SPAN call for bidders. Leave a very public bidding open, if no one but Haliburton bids, get reasons why from the major competitors (some contractors do this with road projects). Do everything in your power to ensure that beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no conflict of interest. Instead we get this "They're the only ones that can do this." (just like MS is the only one who can code an OS), and "No one else bid." (yeah, I'm sure the competitors saw the billion dollar projects and said, "You know, I think I'll pass on that money.")

 

[APF]

The whole American money should stay in America sensibility kills me and I really think on a larger scale hurts various countries international relationships....... we don't live on this planet in one country alone in a vacuum....

Obviously there is a balance people have to draw here, otherwise there would be no American money to spend overseas in the first place.

 

[DarienA]

Obviously there is a balance people have to draw here, otherwise there would be no American money to spend overseas in the first place.

The problem is we seldom see the balance, we usually see the extreme...

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Since this quote was brought back up, I'd like to know how a company with questionable policies is a safe place for finances. I'm not talking about Halliburton specifically, but just in generally. OpinionatedCyborg, are you saying that it would have been good to invest in Enron? In hindsight of course.

Enron would've been a great investment if you sold it before its questionable accounting practices were exposed. Are companies with shaky moral and legal foundations good places to invest a lot of money for the long haul? Of course not. But if you want to take a calculated risk, and you are willing to accept a loss, then by all means go for it.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. At least since yesterday.

Why? I invested shortly before the war, and have continued to reap the benefits ever since. While it's not a long term investment (most of my long term investments are resource based mutual funds), it's been profitable thus far, and since I'm very young (18) even if it falls through, it's not gonna have a big impact on me in the long run.