Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I know that everyone who disagrees with you eventually turns into a big blur, but I was actually not the person who said that. Of the things Haliburton has been accused of doing, that's the one I can sort of see their side of. It's not like a big red coke truck can run between the Baghdad airport and the Green Zone. So let's not put words in my mouth, hm?
|
O.k.
But if you see that point, why not apply the same logic to all other costs of doing business in a war zone?
Quote:
|
I don't understand that last sentence. Nonetheless:
|
Haliburton is willing to take the risks. Why shouldn't they reap the reward? They invested in training and having the means to do business in a war zone. Not many companies can say that. An option the government has is not to out source. Haliburton was willing and able, and I am sure they negotiated in good faith. On the other hand a cost plus contract with no oversite??? Then one of the people responsible for oversite says profiteering is a problem. The congressman who made the statement in the OP in my mind is saying, I wasn't doing my job yesterday, but I am going to do my job tomorrow. i don't buy that kind of B.S.
Quote:
|
We did. They were called Midterm Elections. Much of the anti-Republican (really anti-Incumbent) backlash was from America being sick and tired of lobbyists running the government. That's really all that's happening here.
|
I am betting nothing happens. I am sure they will have hearings, and make speeches, etc., but at the end of the day - no change. One, this issue is just empty rhetoric. Perhaps some poor administrative scape-goat will suffer, but I am betting that won't even happen.
Quote:
|
Scoffing doesn't constitute evidence or argumentation.
|
If I misread what you wrote, I apologize. It seemed like you stated that Haliburton was controlling the Bush administration and congress.
Quote:
|
Can you deny that the company that has most been accused of war profiteering has a former CEO in the White House?
|
Not only that, I bet the reason he got the job to begin with was because of his influence in Washington.
I believe there are people in Washington who do what they believe is best for the country. I do not think everyone is motivated by money. Even if you disagree with Bush, I think he believes what he is doing is best for the country.
Quote:
|
Can you honestly say that the money they've pumped into congresspeople's re-election campaigns has been because they're friendly and helpful?
|
They use money to influence. Somtimes it works. I have used money to influence (also letters, signs, petitions, boycots, etc). If you are not in the game, shame on you. I actively promote my agenda, I expect others to do the same. When they do, I don't pretend their efforts are wrong but mine are o.k.
Quote:
|
Haliburton has been given massive and overloaded no-bid contracts on the whole war-rebuild effort. Is that because there's no competition? Or is it because they're the most favored firm of their type? And if it's because they're the most favored... why do you think that might be?
|
Comfort level. In high pressure situations, I go with what I know works. Pressure situations are not the time to experiment. I beleive that played a role in Haliburton getting the contracts.