Endless war? or End this war!

[Duke]

I look forward to fighting with you in the future. On the same side, that is. :2razz:


Duke

 

[Iriemon]

I'm saying that democracy is dangerous because it can lead to liberals in power (shudder)! The answer is yes, it's so simple, what is so hard to understand about this? If liberals take power, they will kill America and make it no better than heathen gay-lands like Canada and the U.K. And they will stab our troops in the back and retreat from Iraq just as we are about to achieve victory, and the terrorists will follow us home and kill us all!

I might as well tell you the truth. I am being sarcastic. When you responded to my sarcastic post (18) in a serious tone, I simply couldn't help but continue the gag. I am, in truth, one of the most liberal members on the forum. :mrgreen:

I only wish Aquapub hadn't ignored me, because I'm sure he would agree with everything I've said since post 18, thinking I'd turned over a new leaf.


Duke

LOL -- I was wondering. I was beginning to think you had been possessed by PTSDkid or something.

 

[Duke]

LOL -- I was wondering. I was beginning to think you had been possessed by PTSDkid or something.

Well, now you know better. :mrgreen:

I thought I had gone completely over the top there, but I guess my performance was credible. :2razz:


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

War is good for neo-cons.. The US military budget has already been increased 60% since Bush came to power.. Exactly what they wanted.. Makes you wonder what is really going on...

The military budget increased during wartime? Stop the ****ing presses. :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

The military budget increased during wartime? Stop the ****ing presses. :roll:

Yep. Wars are happy days for was profiteering companies like Haliburton and their friends in the military industry.

 

[Duke]

There's nothing like a no-bid contract to brighten up your day, lemme tell you.


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There's nothing like a no-bid contract to brighten up your day, lemme tell you.


Duke

Halliburton gets no-bid contracts because there is no other company on the face of the planet that can do what it does, it's called the law of supply and demand and the services of a one of a kind company; such as, Halliburton are in high demand.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yep. Wars are happy days for was profiteering companies like Haliburton and their friends in the military industry.

lmfao, so who would you rather have do the job of Halliburton? Halliburton is a one of a kind company buddy.

 

[Duke]

Halliburton gets no-bid contracts because there is no other company on the face of the planet that can do what it does, it's called the law of supply and demand and the services of a one of a kind company; such as, Halliburton are in high demand.

It never ceases to amaze me how trusting and doubtless you are. You trust that America is a bastion of democracy, that we always have the high moral ground, your patriotism knows no bounds, it appears to be so free that it is unhindered by facts. But I digress. Are you claiming that Halliburton is the only company that can build things in Iraq? The only company that can deliver mail and make meals? Because if it isn't the only company that can do these things, it is patently undemocratic and unfair to deny these other companies the ability to make a bid. And only an idiot would assume that the the Vice President, former Halliburton CEO had nothing to do with that particular contract. In fact, according to CBS, he manta-ins ties to Halliburton even now.
The laws that drive our economy, including the law of supply and demand, dictate that companies are to compete in order to improve and to get the best deal to the consumer. When that competition is removed from the picture, the fundaments of the American economic policy are eroded.


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It never ceases to amaze me how trusting and doubtless you are.

It never ceases to amaze ME how uninformed you are. Tell me what other company on the face of the planet can do what halliburton does. Furthermore; it has been proven time and time again that Halliburton does not lose or gain money depending on how successful Halliburton does, he entered into a voluntary yet binding contract that guarantees any profit he might have recieved goes to charity.

 

[Duke]

It never ceases to amaze ME how uninformed you are.

Ah, classic Trajan: the "I know you are but what am I?" argument.

Tell me what other company on the face of the planet can do what halliburton does.

Sure. Halliburton provides food. So does Sodexho. Why do you think we didn't let Sodexho place a bid? Wait, Cheney was never CEO of that. Hmm.

I couldn't help but notice that out of a two paragraph post, you only responded to one sentence. Was that a little too much for you, Trajan?

Furthermore; it has been proven time and time again that Halliburton does not lose or gain money depending on how successful Halliburton does, he entered into a voluntary yet binding contract that guarantees any profit he might have recieved goes to charity.

I assume that you meant to say Cheney in the first "Halliburton". I shall respond accordingly.

Ties with Dick Cheney
In recent years the company has become the center of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million[8]. As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[5] Cheney also retains unexercised stock options at Halliburton, which have been valued at nearly $8 million.[5] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes. Wikipedia.

Do you think it is possible that someone who worked for and still receives money from a company, and now works for the government, can cut off all influences from said company? I assume you will say yes, so I am going to preemptively tell you how unrealistic that position is.


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure. Halliburton provides food. So does Sodexho. Why do you think we didn't let Sodexho place a bid? Wait, Cheney was never CEO of that. Hmm.

lmfao, Sodexho is a French company, so let me get this straight you want of foreign firm from a country that refused to participate in the Iraq war to make a profit from the Iraq war? Furthermore; explain to me what exactly how Cheney would stand to gain anything from Halliburton getting the contract? And since when is Halliburton in the food service industry anyways?

I assume that you meant to say Cheney in the first "Halliburton". I shall respond accordingly.



Do you think it is possible that someone who worked for and still receives money from a company, and now works for the government, can cut off all influences from said company? I assume you will say yes, so I am going to preemptively tell you how unrealistic that position is.


Duke

Get educated, Cheney doesn't make a dime from Halliburton regardless of how well they do:

FactCheck.org: Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton

 

[Inuyasha]

What Halliburton does very well, besides taking more of my tax dollar than it should, is to sub-contract. These people are a bunch of thieves. I envy them. I wish I was a s good a thief. I think TOT is right Duke...Cheney doesn't get any money from Halliburton any more ..he just goes directly to Fort Knox. In 2009..if he's still kicking he will start to draw a check from Halliburton again and they'll make up for his down time. Hey just because he's a PS doesn't mean he can't bet a pension now does it.

 

[Iriemon]

Halliburton gets no-bid contracts because there is no other company on the face of the planet that can do what it does, it's called the law of supply and demand and the services of a one of a kind company; such as, Halliburton are in high demand.

It takes a special skill and expertise to make and serve meals and do laundry, that only Halliburton could perform justifying multi-billion no-bid contracts.

 

[DeeJayH]

so what company does the Democrats Use
who did Clinton USE, and how did that bid process work?

 

[Duke]

lmfao, Sodexho is a French company, so let me get this straight you want of foreign firm from a country that refused to participate in the Iraq war to make a profit from the Iraq war?

Wrong. It was founded in France, but it is multinational. It has no ties to the French government. Sodexho has done business with the US military before. Can you give me a link saying that Sodexho refused to participate in the Iraq War? :lol:

So stop dodging, and answer the question. Why shouldn't companies like Sodexho, huge companies (Sodexho is no slouch, lemme tell you), gotten a shot at getting contracts in Iraq, in this case, food service contracts? Doesn't denying them the right to bid go against the economic principles of the country?

Furthermore; explain to me what exactly how Cheney would stand to gain anything from Halliburton getting the contract?

Don't put words into my mouth, don't be dishonest. I never said he directly stands to gain, you misinterpreted my post. I asked you this:

"Do you think it is possible that someone who worked for and still receives money from a company, and now works for the government, can cut off all influences from said company?"

And since when is Halliburton in the food service industry anyways?

Get educated, Trajan:

Services performed by Halliburton, through its Brown and Root subsidiary, include building and managing military bases, logistical support for the 1,200 intelligence officers hunting Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, delivering mail and producing millions of hot meals. Often dressed in Army fatigues with civilian patches on their shoulders, Halliburton employees and contract personnel have become an integral part of Army life in Iraq.

Washington Post

I would also like to remind you that you dodged a large part of post 34 (all of it but the first line). Here you go, I'll link you to it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/541165-post34.html


Duke

 

[Hatuey]

I saw this article on how there were actually around 70-100 thousand private military contractors working in Iraq. Why can't we send more of those guys over there and bring ours home?

 

[Iriemon]

I saw this article on how there were actually around 70-100 thousand private military contractors working in Iraq. Why can't we send more of those guys over there and bring ours home?

Mercenaries don't always work well as soldiers. Plus they cost a lot more.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wrong. It was founded in France, but it is multinational. It has no ties to the French government. Sodexho has done business with the US military before. Can you give me a link saying that Sodexho refused to participate in the Iraq War? :lol:

It's a French based company it pays taxes to the French government, why should we allow the French to profit off of the war that they refused to help us with? Saying that because it's a multinational that it's not a French company is like saying that McDonalds isn't an American company.

So stop dodging, and answer the question. Why shouldn't companies like Sodexho, huge companies (Sodexho is no slouch, lemme tell you), gotten a shot at getting contracts in Iraq, in this case, food service contracts? Doesn't denying them the right to bid go against the economic principles of the country?

We're not going to let a French based company profit off of a war that the French refused to participate in.

Don't put words into my mouth, don't be dishonest. I never said he directly stands to gain, you misinterpreted my post. I asked you this:

"Do you think it is possible that someone who worked for and still receives money from a company, and now works for the government, can cut off all influences from said company?"

He entered into a voluntary contractual agreement just so he wouldn't be influenced.

 

[Duke]

It's a French based company it pays taxes to the French government, why should we allow the French to profit off of the war that they refused to help us with? Saying that because it's a multinational that it's not a French company is like saying that McDonalds isn't an American company.



We're not going to let a French based company profit off of a war that the French refused to participate in.

You are dodging the point completely. The point has nothing to do with Sodexho. How about Aramark or Compass Group? American and British, respectivly. Why was Aramark, Compass, or any other service provider, not allowed to bid on the Iraq contracts? You said that Halliburton is the only country that can do the things that Halliburton does, that is untrue. Other countries can build buildings, serve food, and deliver mail, and they can do it in Iraq. America and its economy are based on freedom and equality. But in this instance, these principles were not upheld. Companies perfectly able to do something America needed were not allowed the right to bid on the contract, instead it was handed to one specific company. This goes against the fundaments of American economic theory. Companies are supposed to compete to ensure that the consumer gets the best deal, but the competition was, in this case, eliminated. This takes away the most basic idea behind the free market idea that is is American as the stars and stripes.
But it begs the question, why was one company, Halliburton, picked out of all of these other companies that were capable of doing the things they wanted Halliburton to do? They didn't even let these other companies try to get the contract, they didn't let them compete, they just gave it to Halliburton. I'm sure the fact that the Vice President at the time just so happenend to be the former CEO of Halliburton didn't have anything to do with it, oh no, it's crazy to insinuate that the former CEO of a company might do something to help said company.


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You are dodging the point completely. The point has nothing to do with Sodexho. How about Aramark or Compass Group? American and British, respectivly. Why was Aramark, Compass, or any other service provider, not allowed to bid on the Iraq contracts? You said that Halliburton is the only country that can do the things that Halliburton does, that is untrue. Other countries can build buildings, serve food, and deliver mail, and they can do it in Iraq. America and its economy are based on freedom and equality. But in this instance, these principles were not upheld. Companies perfectly able to do something America needed were not allowed the right to bid on the contract, instead it was handed to one specific company. This goes against the fundaments of American economic theory. Companies are supposed to compete to ensure that the consumer gets the best deal, but the competition was, in this case, eliminated. This takes away the most basic idea behind the free market idea that is is American as the stars and stripes.
But it begs the question, why was one company, Halliburton, picked out of all of these other companies that were capable of doing the things they wanted Halliburton to do? They didn't even let these other companies try to get the contract, they didn't let them compete, they just gave it to Halliburton. I'm sure the fact that the Vice President at the time just so happenend to be the former CEO of Halliburton didn't have anything to do with it, oh no, it's crazy to insinuate that the former CEO of a company might do something to help said company.


Duke

Do you really not know the reason why Halliburton gets no-bid contracts? It's because they do everything under one roof, oil infrastructure, structural infrastructure, food, private security firms (mercs), etc they are the only company in the world that can say that, they even have their own security forces. Do you even know the demand for Halliburton services worldwide not just in Iraq? Being one of a kind allows Halliburton to set its own demand. What do you want like 20 different companies doing 20 different things going into Iraq without proper private security forces?

 

[Duke]

Do you really not know the reason why Halliburton gets no-bid contracts? It's because they do everything under one roof, oil infrastructure, structural infrastructure, food, private security firms (mercs), etc they are the only company in the world that can say that, they even have their own security forces. Do you even know the demand for Halliburton services worldwide not just in Iraq? Being one of a kind allows Halliburton to set its own demand. What do you want like 20 different companies doing 20 different things going into Iraq without proper private security forces?

You appear to be under the totally fallacious assumption that Halliburton has no competitors in its various fields, and that it is "the only company that does what it does", therefore, bidding wars should not be held when contracts are being offered. I also noticed you ignored/avoided the bit of my post about free economic policy. There are other companies that do the things that Halliburton does, and there are companies that do most, if not all of those things. How about Bechtel, Schlumberger, or Technip? You're claim that Halliburton is "the only company in the world" that can do the things it is doing in Iraq is patently false. I tend to wonder where you got that idea from.
I've said this twice before, and you've ignored it twice, so I'll say it again: America is based on a free market system, a free economy. This means that the government is not to pick and support this company or that one, instead, the economy is. That is the purpose of bidding: the company that is strongest economically is the one that can make the best bid. It's the idea of equal opportunity, one that is fundamental in the economy. They've got the same opportunity, and why one company excels isn't chosen by the government, but by that company itself. However, despite the fact that Halliburton had competitors that would have wanted this contract, the government simply handed it to Halliburton, violating some of the most important principles of the American economic model. You are defending this, but you still have no basis for your support of this no-bid policy. I suspect that it stems from your constant blind support for the Right and its various positions. But I digress: Why should America violate the essential and fundamental rules of the American economic policy to hand a contract to Halliburton instead of letting its rivals get a shot at it?


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You appear to be under the totally fallacious assumption that Halliburton has no competitors in its various fields, and that it is "the only company that does what it does", therefore, bidding wars should not be held when contracts are being offered. I also noticed you ignored/avoided the bit of my post about free economic policy. There are other companies that do the things that Halliburton does, and there are companies that do most, if not all of those things. How about Bechtel, Schlumberger, or Technip? You're claim that Halliburton is "the only company in the world" that can do the things it is doing in Iraq is patently false. I tend to wonder where you got that idea from.

Betchel recieved no-bid contracts for Katrina, but do they have their own private security force? Do they do oil infrastructure? No I don't think so.

Schlumberger and Technip are French, we've already been over that.

I've said this twice before, and you've ignored it twice, so I'll say it again: America is based on a free market system, a free economy. This means that the government is not to pick and support this company or that one, instead, the economy is.

That is the purpose of bidding: the company that is strongest economically is the one that can make the best bid. It's the idea of equal opportunity, one that is fundamental in the economy. They've got the same opportunity, and why one company excels isn't chosen by the government, but by that company itself. However, despite the fact that Halliburton had competitors that would have wanted this contract, the government simply handed it to Halliburton, violating some of the most important principles of the American economic model. You are defending this, but you still have no basis for your support of this no-bid policy. I suspect that it stems from your constant blind support for the Right and its various positions. But I digress: Why should America violate the essential and fundamental rules of the American economic policy to hand a contract to Halliburton instead of letting its rivals get a shot at it?


Duke

I have two very good reasons for not allowing the companies you mentioned into Iraq A) The first one can not provide the same amount of services that Halliburton can and we don't need twenty different companies doing 20 different things in a war zone, and B) The second and third companies you mentioned are French and only an idiot would allow companies based in a foreign nation that refused to participate in the war effort to come into Iraq and start devoloping their oil which is infact supposed to help pay for said war effort.