By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mrstickball on 30 July 2010
Edit Thread
O-D-C said:
mrstickball said:
O-D-C said:
mrstickball said:
O-D-C said:

the US gave the contract to rebuild the Iraqui oil feilds to Halliburton (Dick Cheney's) company.

And who were they supposed to give it to?


someone who wasn't the vice president of the country invading Iraq?

So, reccomend a company in your infinite wisdom.

Reccomend an American company that could conduct reconstruction of the oil fields that had the size and scope of ability to take care of such a project. Someone that has major offices based in both the US and Mid East, with close ties to projects in the area.

Go ahead, I'm waiting.


I dont know enough of american oil companies to pick one, but don't u think that it's fishy that the (at the time) vice president of the USA who just declared war on a country known for being rich in oil is also in charge of one of the largest oil companies in the world. It just seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Does it look like its a conflict of interest? Yes.

Does that mean we went to war so Haliburton could get profits, and America steal all of Iraq's oil reserves (which is the point of the OP)? No.

Picking Haliburton as a contractor was a dumb move. I agree that it wasn't a smart one. However, given the scope of the war, the truth is, Haliburton would of been the top candidate, regardless.

Here is why, I believe, Haliburton would of been picked, anyway:

  • They are a big oil company
  • They have offices in the US (Texas) and MidEast (UAE)
  • They are a private military contractor with experience in prior wars (Kosovo)

Because of that, Haliburton was the logical choice. Again, was it a conflict of interest? Potentially. However, lets not forget that both Clinton and Obama's administrations have contracted them for their wars, too. If it was all up to Bush and Cheney's ties, then why is Obama keeping them as a major contractor?

In the face of the facts, I just don't see how Haliburton's pick for billions of dollars in government contracts only came down to the vice president being their former CEO. Did it help? I am sure, but when you start researching the government contracts that Haliburton was awarded, they were not awarded any strange contracts that were outside their realm of abilities. Furthermore, Haliburton did a few questionable things in Iraq we all know about...Looking at the legal cases, they got hammered for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation deals, and the government outright refusing to pay them. To me, that reaks of stupidity by Haliburton and not a grand conspiracy by the vice president to award them massive contracts.

Thats why I take my stance on the issue: oil and Haliburton profits may have played a small part in the Iraq war, but when you look at the statistics, revenues, costs, imports, exports, and overall view of what all has transpired since 2003, it looks more like a clusterf*** than a scheme. Argue what you will, but I don't see us going to war souly based on what the OP is asking about. We could of invaded Canada for about 10x the oil.

 

In the end, my opinion is that those that want to tie the war to corporations or America's greed for oil are attempting to do it to provide some sort of 'nice' escape route for their distain of the Iraq war. Given the war in its entirety, I don't think that arguing oil nor Haliburton makes for the most reasonable negative critique of the war. There are dozens of other better sticking points than the unreasonable argument of oil for war.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.