One more reason

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

What proof has been presented that no other American company besides Halliburton could have handled the job? None. If you want me to buy that wild claim, I'd suggest that you post some substantiation...

Nice spin. But he asked you provide proof that another company could do it.

I challenge you to do the same.

I work for the Federal Gov't actually, and I can tell that almost every contractor I have talked to (from Honeywell, Boeing, and others) thought that the magnitude of the Haliburton contract was staggering in terms of its size and complexity.

Every company that is in the same field as Halliburton doesn't have the capabilities to do such a project as this. They might be able to do some smaller ones, but not the whole thing.

You can argue that maybe it should have been broken up, but you haven't. And even if they did break it up, there would more problems with communication and optimization of resources. And it would have been more expensive. I can vouch for that. Any time we have project it is always easier and cheaper to have it be a big massive project then a bunch of smaller ones.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by rascal

Nice spin. But he asked you provide proof that another company could do it.

I challenge you to do the same.

I work for the Federal Gov't actually, and I can tell that almost every contractor I have talked to (from Honeywell, Boeing, and others) thought that the magnitude of the Haliburton contract was staggering in terms of its size and complexity.

I've defended my comment that Halliburton is making billions in profits from the war... the contention that they're the only American company who could handle the government contracts was not mine to prove or disprove. The fact still remains that no other American companies were given the opportunity to submit a bid on the contracts, as they were awarded without bids.

[Captain_Poncho]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

the contention that they're the only American company who could handle the government contracts was not mine to prove or disprove.

So in short, you'll believe it in spite of there being no basis in fact besides conjecture and you don't want to be bothered with actually finding out if the contrary is true.

Classic.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

So in short, you'll believe it in spite of there being no basis in fact besides conjecture and you don't want to be bothered with actually finding out if the contrary is true.

Classic.

In short, I consider the onus to be on you to prove your statement; not on me to refute it. Where's your link, Captain?

[Captain_Poncho]

Wow. A spin meister extraordinaire.

Now I have to prove a negative in order for you to believe it.

Since that's impossible, I'll leave it at that, and just chalk one up to your longing to wallow in an information vacuum. I shan't be losing any sleep over your willful ignorance.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In short, I consider the onus to be on you to prove your statement; not on me to refute it.

But Flame, this would presuppose that Panocha understands the rules of debate.

In Panocha's religiously insane world, the only rules of debate are:

a) To note that your opponent has expressed a liberal point of view and/or doesn't unconditionally smooch dubya's butt/unconditionally support the GOP.

b) To call him/her (and his sources) a few choice names and repeat a few ready-made anti-liberal epithets he learned at freerepublic.com

c) Declare victory.

Where's your link, Captain?



Good one!

[Captain_Poncho]

I do so love you, Pinhead.

In this ever-changing world, it's nice to know there's a few constants.

Have fun spamming the board tonight.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Just like that, Snapperhead offers us a demonstration to support those observations in post #56.

Have fun reading freerepublic.com with your lips moving, little buddy.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Wow. A spin meister extraordinaire.

Now I have to prove a negative in order for you to believe it.

Since that's impossible, I'll leave it at that, and just chalk one up to your longing to wallow in an information vacuum. I shan't be losing any sleep over your willful ignorance.

Does this statement sound familiar to you, Captain?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

"The point is, sweetie, that no other American company could do it."

You have yet to provide the slightest smidgen of proof that your statement is true; instead attempting to turn me into your personal research serf in an effort to refute said wild assertion.

When requested, I've backed up my statements...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You see, Flame, Panocha is one of those religious nutters who starts from the foregone conclusion that The Bible/BushCo/GOP are always right--and then he sets out to ignore and/or discount all facts which disconfirm this belief.

Arguing politics w/ Panocha is like trying to discuss religion w/ a Jehovah's Witness.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You see, Flame, Panocha is one of those religious nutters who starts from the foregone conclusion that The Bible/BushCo/GOP are always right--and then he sets out to ignore and/or discount all facts which disconfirm this belief.

Arguing politics w/ Panocha is like trying to discuss religion w/ a Jehovah's Witness.

While I haven't gone back through the Captain's posts...right off the top of my head, I can't recall him posting a single article in support of any of his statements. He appears very quick to require links from others, however... both to "prove" their statements and to refute his. It's like his comments are automatically presumed to be true until disproven and any other perspective must be undeniably proven down to the tiniest minutiae or it's considered false. Rather a double standard, wouldn't you say?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Rather a double standard, wouldn't you say?

Just like most denizens of the extreme right-wing fringe, Panocha has two sets of standards where debate is concerned: one for him and his buddies and one for all BushCo/GOP critics.

Once you've read enough of his posts, you'll see that he comes from that typical, fundamentalist "right because so-and-so says so" school of ethics.

No critical thinking required--just obedience and the 'correct' interpretation of The Bible and GOP doctrine.

It's disturbing how Rush and Fox News have indoctrinated people like Panocha with the belief that they're always right in any given political debate and that they need not provide facts or valid arguments to support their views.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"The point is, sweetie, that no other American company could do it." --Cap'n Panocha

Is this a true statement?

Do you have actual facts/data/links to support this assertion, or are you just parroting freerepublic.com again?

[Rock Chalk]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

If, as you say, Halliburton is the only company in America that could do the job, then why is there a controversy over the lack of bids? I don't buy it.

Other countries and conglomerates outside the US didn't get a chance to bid is the controversy. While it may spring from the uneducated public in America, it was foreign nations that were intitally complaining about it if you recall correctly.

There may be American companies that can do some of the jobs required, but Haliburton is the only one I know of that is capable of handling it all from not only a professional/technical level, but more importantly an ORGANIZATIONAL level, the likes of which few companies in the world are capable of.

Haliburton is also not the only company over there doing business to my understanding. America is not the only nation doing things over there. Haliburton got its contract because of its ability to do the job and because it is an American company with American workers which helps our economy. We spent billions in the war, time for some of that to come back to us. Other companies got their contracts for their parts of which they are capable of handling and which are independant of Haliburton as well so its not like Haliburton is doing everything.

So the French get screwed, this is the price you pay for not supporting your ALLIES.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

How many links do you want, HR?

From a Google search of "Halliburton + Iraq profits".... please keep in mind that I recognize some biased sources in this sampling of articles. Normally, I wouldn't cite these sources, but Google listed them.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4311.htm
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/61618/1/
http://truthout.org/docs_03/060403A.shtml
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html
http://www.rense.com/general39/sky.htm
http://www.whodies.com/lies_profits.html
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Iraq...ton_082803.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/I...alliburton.htm
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm...earns/?cnn=yes
http://www.rense.com/general29/dbus....profiteer.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/who-profits.html
http://www.opctj.org/articles/jason-...03-001358.html

#1- $26 mil profit in 2nd quarter 2003
#2- a petition
#3- nothing about profits, just a Rep Waxman complaint letter
#4- lefty rant from Mar, 2003
#5- says same thing as #1
#6- nothing about profits, complaints on Cheney statements before the 2000 election
#7- nothing, though mentions the $26 mil profit number
#8- exact same article as #4
#9- general talk of people profiting from Iraq contracts
#10- busted link
#11- nothing
#12- same article as #4 and #8

Not one said Halliburton is making billions in profits like you claimed Blue.

[watermock]

Kofi's cover up



Despite U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's promises to fully investigate the scandal in the Oil for Food program, United Nations officials have been doing their level best to conceal information from investigators and the public. The office of Benon Sevan, the outgoing boss of the program, has sent at least three letters to companies who participated in it urging them not to hand over documents to investigators without first clearing their release with the United Nations. Unfortunately, while Mr. Sevan has continued to stonewall, Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), is undercutting efforts by the Iraq Governing Council to conduct its own audit of the program.
One of Mr. Sevan's letters was sent to a firm called Cotecna Inspection SA, which for five years had responsibility for verifying that relief shipments provided through the Oil for Food program actually reached Iraqis in need. Cotecna once employed Mr. Annan's son, Kojo, according to scholar-journalist Claudia Rosett, who has played a major role in exposing the scandal. Mr. Sevan's letter to Cotecna warns that all information "shall be treated as confidential and shall be delivered only to United Nations authorized officials."

Coming from Mr. Sevan, this should raise red flags. A veteran U.N. bureaucrat, he has been at the very heart of the scandal ever since his name turned up in records found in former dictator Saddam Hussein's Oil Ministry in Baghdad. The records suggest that Mr. Sevan was given a voucher enabling him to receive 11.5 million barrels of oil as a result of Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to earn him a profit of up to $3.5 million. Mr. Sevan, who is retiring at the end of the month, has refused to respond to press questions about his management of the program.
In his own defense, Secretary-General Annan has repeatedly asserted that he didn't know about the myriad problems in the program. He may want to take a look at some of the more than 50 reports put together by the United Nations' own Office of Internal Oversight Services — reports that he refuses to release to Congress. Just one of these reports (which was published earlier this week on the Web site www. mineweb.com), produced in 2002, goes on for close to 20 pages about U.N. malfeasance in the handling of the Cotecna contract. According to Mr. Annan, all of these problems will be fixed thanks to the work of the United Nations' own investigative team headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Don't believe it. Given the fact that Mr. Volcker lacks subpoena power, his investigation will likely go nowhere.
Meanwhile, Claude Hankes-Drielsma, who is heading the IGC's investigation, told this newspaper yesterday that he continues to face interference from the CPA's Mr. Bremer. Mr. Hankes-Drielsma suggests that Mr. Bremer is motivated by concern that public attention to the scandal will undermine support for transferring responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations on June 30. Whatever the motivation, his refusal to release funds to pay for continuing the IGC's audit of the Oil for Food program is delaying this critical investigation. Mr. Bremer should reverse course and permit the IGC's investigation to proceed.

Your an idiot.

[Captain_Poncho]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

When requested, I've backed up my statements...

Sugarbritches, maybe you're not reading slowly enough - what you're asking me to do is to go out and find companies that DO NOT EXIST as "proof."

If you can't grasp the idiocy of that, then there's really nothing I can do for you.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Sugarbritches, maybe you're not reading slowly enough - what you're asking me to do is to go out and find companies that DO NOT EXIST as "proof."

If you can't grasp the idiocy of that, then there's really nothing I can do for you.

... and we know for a fact this is true because you told us so, right? Gotcha.

It looks to me like Halliburton hasn't handled those contracts all that well, either...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq_contracts

[Rohirrim]

I'm going back through this thread to find where Blue insulted CP, and can't find any, but he keeps insulting her. Why is that? The little wienie syndrome?

Anyway, the answer to the question is real simple. Can one American company do what Halliburton does? Maybe not (though there is Bechtel). Could ten different companies do what Halliburton does? Sure, no problem. I'm sure the Cheney connection has nothing to do with it. rofl

[Blueflame]

If I have tossed out an insult toward the Captain, it's been unintentional, Roh... normally I save the insults for the Chefs and Fade fans. Some people do go directly to the personal remarks, however... and he appears to be one of those. Eh... whatever makes him happy, I guess.