Thank goodness for Fox News! Obama: America a Superpower 'Whether We Like It or Not'

#101
#101
Bush was over the top with U.S. interventionism. Obama is over the top with the U.S. sucksism.

Honestly there has to be a middle ground between these two but avoiding criticism of Obama because Bush was bad just doesn't make sense to me.
 
#102
#102
volinbham said:
Bush was over the top with U.S. interventionism. Obama is over the top with the U.S. sucksism.

Honestly there has to be a middle ground between these two but avoiding criticism of Obama because Bush was bad just doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

I agree. Adopting a foreign policy that is predicated on "talking" to our enemies to get them to suddenly change their behavior is beyond naive. This is just the academic leftist approach that is not practical. McCain's foreign policy blows Obama's out of the water simply because it was practical.

And I also agree that we should not be apologizing for our place in the world. We contribute the vast majority of the budget to the U.N. We are the world's leader by far and away in lending aid to other countries. In 2009, our military budget was more than every other country in the world combined. Those are things to be proud of not to make excuses for.
 
#103
#103
DC Vol said:
Absolutely not. All of their contracts were Cost Plus +10-15%. Even if they only went for flat cost they still would have made money as they (as do most government contractors) far over-quote to task a billet or contract. Halliburton was a no-bid... but there is no way in the world that they were in the position to do that work and Betchel (current contractor working on the botched RIO contract) wasn't. No, Betchel didn't get a shot. The no-bid scenario between a company that, 3 years prior, had the current Vice President as it's Chairman and CEO is a little bit more than suspicious.

They were running a racket on the US taxpayers. Believe they're a "good hearted" company if you want... but they've profited on the Iraq War immensely.
Click to expand...

Then why did that division lose money? why did they spin off a supposed billion $$$$ cash generator just a year later? why did that spin off practically go bankrupt? it's all in the filings. and betchel is absolutely not as qualified as HAL for that work. i'm not saying they are good hearted, but there is no conspiracy. HAL is THE technological leader in this stuff. no one else is even close. this would be like *****ing cisco got a router contract from the gov't because obama's brother worked for them.
 
#104
#104
droski said:
Then why did that division lose money? why did they spin off a supposed billion $$$$ cash generator just a year later? why did that spin off practically go bankrupt? it's all in the filings. and betchel is absolutely not as qualified as HAL for that work. i'm not saying they are good hearted, but there is no conspiracy. HAL is THE technological leader in this stuff. no one else is even close. this would be like *****ing cisco got a router contract from the gov't because obama's brother worked for them.
Click to expand...

No, this would be like Obama being the CEO and Chairman for NetGear, and NetGear getting a no-bid contract and not even letting Cisco put in a bid.

Betchel is currently cleaning up HALs mess. So yeah, I'd say that Betchel is qualified to do the work. HAL completely botched that job and made decisions that had drilling experts scratching their heads. If HAL lost money on a Cost Plus contract they have no business in the contracting business. Cost Plus contracts are fat money.

Not a "conspiracy" just an Administration (like many others) that gave blatant advantages to their buddies. That's pretty much the nexus of government contracting though.
 
#105
#105
so why hasn't HAL been charged with SEC fraud? their statements CLEARLY show they lost money on the contracts. billions even. AND once again they spun off the division which is not somethig people do when they have a "fat money" generator.
 
#106
#106
droski said:
so why hasn't HAL been charged with SEC fraud? their statements CLEARLY show they lost money on the contracts. billions even. AND once again they spun off the division which is not somethig people do when they have a "fat money" generator.
Click to expand...

For the same reason that Obama didn't choose to pursue charges against Bush & Co. for warcrimes related to torture that many in the US were calling for.

For the same reason that an unconstitutional wire-tapping program is still in full swing.



Again, if they lost money on the RIO contract it's because they weren't qualified. If they weren't qualified why did they get an incredibly lucrative no-bid contract? Also, Halliburton has all manner of subsidiaries and it's quite easy to funnel money through black-listed programs if you have the right government contacts.
 
#108
#108
droski said:
you've gone into tin foil hat territory.
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay.

Let me just make sure we are on the same page:

Are you denying that certain companies with certain connections use those connecting to pull in no-bid contracts during wartime.

-or-

That there is a cover-up with the account funding of these companies' contracts?

I suggest you read this:
United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs : Press

Unless you think that's also warrgarbling for political gains. As far as I know, Halliburton far overcharged for a far substandard product. Companies like that don't get no-bid contracts. Even when my company is getting a contract for furniture we have to have a minimum competition of 4 different companies with full cost quotes to be reviewed and subsequently audited.
 
#109
#109
i'm saying IN THIS CASE the best company was selected and hte only company QUALIFIED to do this type of work was selected. there are probably only 2 or 3 companies in the world who coudl even bid on such a contract. and i see no evidence haliburton overcharged. it's really friggin expensive to do this stuff in a warzone.
 
#110
#110
droski said:
i'm saying IN THIS CASE the best company was selected and hte only company QUALIFIED to do this type of work was selected. there are probably only 2 or 3 companies in the world who coudl even bid on such a contract. and i see no evidence haliburton overcharged. it's really friggin expensive to do this stuff in a warzone.
Click to expand...
So Bechtel, a far larger and more experienced engineering firm (largest in the US and one of the largest in the world) wasn't qualified 7 years ago for a contract (before they got a chance to pitch if they were qualified) and Halliburton was? Regardless of the fact that Bechtel now holds that contract which was awarded on competitive terms?

Seems that if I'm chillin' with a tin foil hat on, you're in need of a shearing.
 
Last edited:
#111
#111
no they wre not as qualified. not even close. were are not talking about simple engineering here we are talking about oil and gas services. without the political uproar hal would still have the contract.
 
#112
#112
droski said:
no they wre not as qualified. not even close. were are not talking about simple engineering here we are talking about oil and gas services. without the political uproar hal would still have the contract.
Click to expand...

So Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford weren't qualified in 2003?
 
#114
#114
droski said:
No they weren't. No one else had the combination HAL did. None. It's complete garbage.

Halliburton, the profitless war profiteer. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine
Click to expand...

So they were immensely qualified yet were almost cripplingly incompetent? That really doesn't add up to me. Then again, I'm used to working with companies that are awarded contracts based on cost-comparisons in usually very competitive bidding processes.

Other companies didn't have the same combination that HAL did? Like what? A former CEO as VP that expedited a whirlwind no-bid contract a few months before OIF kicked off?
 
#115
#115
they weren't incompetent, that is the guys interpretation. in reality they didn't factor that iraq would be so dangerous (not many did) and their security costs were billions higher than they expected.
 
#116
#116
droski said:
they weren't incompetent, that is the guys interpretation. in reality they didn't factor that iraq would be so dangerous (not many did) and their security costs were billions higher than they expected.
Click to expand...

So they weren't incompetent in the handling of the Fatah pipeline? At all?

Well then, I guess if the contract proposal term was a little bit longer... and if some of the career suits had listened to input from their JCS/DoD/Intel advisers they would have realized the storm that Iraq was going to result in.

And who is the "not many" anyway? When I was in basic starting in October of 2003. It was hammered into us that we (the US) were going to be in Iraq during our entire first terms (4 for most). It was glaringly obvious to everyone that had a professional opinion. There were plenty of intel reports and memos that pointed out the long-term effects of Iraq.

Speaking of security costs, do you really want to discuss their utter failure with LOGCAP?
 
#118
#118
droski said:
i'll freely admit you now went over my head :)
Click to expand...

Good article on the Fatah pipeline:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/world/middleeast/25pipeline.html

LOGCAP (LOGistics Civilian Augmentation Program) was a contract also awarded to provide (privatized) support to certain aspects of the military. Basically, the Army/USMC only get a certain number of enlistments per year. The problem the military ran into is they didn't have enough "boots on the ground". There were soldiers and Marines tied up in non-combat elements (logistics support, food services, Operations and Maintainence, Information, etc) that were then tasked with convoy duties, checkpoints, etc. Who do you replace them with? Private contractors. The program itself is new, but the concept has been a part of military operations for a long time.

That was the security failure you talked about. Halli/KBR were reckless in that capacity. They lost thousands of Government controlled items (some classified) and did not abide by DoD standards of conduct and accountability of controlled items. KBR (then an arm of Halliburton) on several occasions sent drivers through red zones without any cover and when they were attacked provided no support. The Army, mostly, had to go in and bail out these drivers who mostly were driving completely un-armed and un-armored trucks. KBR's replacement, DynCorp, has done a far better job providing services.
 
#120
#120
I am sure it has been argued ad nauseam, but I think a lot of you are taking this completely out of context.
 
#123
#123
He's not saying "it sucks that we are a superpower" he is saying "it sucks that because of that we end up being the world police"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top