Iraqi/Syrian oil pipeline....

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Tsk, and yet, Halliburton's foriegn subsidies can pump oil in a similar fashion after Gulf War I and nobody makes a peep...

Alright, Tyler, which subsidiaries are you referring to specifically? Give me some names.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Dresser Industries, Dresser Rand, Ingersoll Dresser Pump, Halliburton Products and Services (offices in Tehran).

 

Any other stupid questions where you assume I don't know the answers?

[Guest Powerplay]

Dresser Industries, Dresser Rand, Ingersoll Dresser Pump, Halliburton Products and Services (offices in Tehran).

 

Any other stupid questions where you assume I don't know the answers?

Okay, another question: Are these services directly involved in pumping and shipping of the oil? Because I've always thought that Haliburton was only involved in the construction of these pumps and other such.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Three of the subsidies involved the sale and shipping of equipment to Iraq, whereas the last one, Halliburton Services, etc... was, apparently, involved with the actual processes. Again, this is just from information I have, that may be wrong... but the Dresser Rand, Ingersoll, and Dresser Pump were, most definitely, involved with the sale of equipment to Iraq. This clearly violates UN resolutions, even if the other one DIDN'T pump the oil like I was informed (I recieved the info on Halliburton Services via a fairly liberal site, so I'm sure it's relatively debatable whether or not that part is true. However, the other three subsidies are completely and totally unquestioned)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Also, these subsidies dealt with Iran and Libya as well as Iraq, which are two of the countres apparently in our crosshairs and, if I'm not mistaken, one of which (Libya) who has economic sanctions placed against them, too.

[Guest Powerplay]

Three of the subsidies involved the sale and shipping of equipment to Iraq, whereas the last one, Halliburton Services, etc... was, apparently, involved with the actual processes. Again, this is just from information I have, that may be wrong... but the Dresser Rand, Ingersoll, and Dresser Pump were, most definitely, involved with the sale of equipment to Iraq. This clearly violates UN resolutions, even if the other one DIDN'T pump the oil like I was informed (I recieved the info on Halliburton Services via a fairly liberal site, so I'm sure it's relatively debatable whether or not that part is true. However, the other three subsidies are completely and totally unquestioned)

Well, if it was only parts, I'm wondering if they got a contract to help reconstruction and fixing of many of the oil wells damaged in the 1991 Gulf War so that the Oil for Food program could be successful. I'm looking this up, but technically then it would be totally legal.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Dresser Industries, Dresser Rand, Ingersoll Dresser Pump, Halliburton Products and Services (offices in Tehran).

 

Any other stupid questions where you assume I don't know the answers?

Ok...here we go.

 

I never assumed you didn't know the answers; I was actually hoping that you did, because what I am about to explain to you will make a lot more sense if you know the name "Dresser."

 

- Dick Cheney did not become head of Halliburton until 1995.

 

- Dresser was not part of Halliburton until 1998. Yes, that's right, 1998. That's the year in which Halliburton merged with Dresser, which also owned another subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root (you'll probably know it as KBR).

 

- The drilling/pumping that you keep referring did indeed go on, and was done by Dresser. To say that Cheney was the one who arranged all the deals and reaped the benefits of it is unreasonable, however. All the drilling that was done by Dresser was done because of some contracts it was awarded immediately after the Gulf War. The fact that the activitiy continued under Cheney's watch is undisputed - but the reason it was continued is because Dresser was legally obligated to finish the contracts. It had nothing to do with good old "Criminal Cheney" making some shady deals because the deals were in place several years before he even took over the company. Obviously, your news source forgot to mention this.

 

- Since those Dresser contracts were completed, Halliburton has never done another dollar's worth of business in Iraq, until very recently when KBR was tapped to cap any oil well fires and/or repair any damage that might occur during the war.

 

So please, be sure you have the full story before you go flying off the handle and label Cheney and any other high-ranking Bush officials as criminals.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Dresser Industries, Dresser Rand, Ingersoll Dresser Pump, Halliburton Products and Services (offices in Tehran).

 

Any other stupid questions where you assume I don't know the answers?

Okay, another question: Are these services directly involved in pumping and shipping of the oil? Because I've always thought that Haliburton was only involved in the construction of these pumps and other such.

That is correct.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

They weren't contracts in the Oil For Food program, they were direct contracts with the Iraqi government and Saddam Hussein.

 

And, for the potential argument that Cheney didn't know about the dealings with Iraq, here's a quote from the former chairman of Ingersonn-Rand, whose company was taken over by Cheney's Halliburton:

 

When speaking about whether or not Cheney could have known I-R did extensive business wth Iraq, James E. Perella said, "They obviously did due dilligence."

 

The Washington Post, too, concluded that, "the dealings were more exensive than originally reported and than Vice President Cheney has acknowledged ... Cheney has offered contradictory accounts of how much he knew about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq." -- 6/23/2001

[Guest Powerplay]

Well, I'm gonna stop looking since it seems like BF has the facts on the case.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

- Since those Dresser contracts were completed, Halliburton has never done another dollar's worth of business in Iraq, until very recently when KBR was tapped to cap any oil well fires and/or repair any damage that might occur during the war.

 

Incorrect. According to a United Nations report, the two companies continued signing NEW contracts for over a year after the takeover, when the company was under direct control of one Dick Cheney (Washington Post, 6/23/2001)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In addition to this, you still haven't disputed Cheney's dealings with Libya and Iran, two other countries under US economic sanctions since 1993.

 

But, let's focus on the Iraq issue, shall we?

[Guest Powerplay]

According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

 

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them.

 

Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said that if he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No.' "

 

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin said. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

 

The trade was perfectly legal. Indeed, it is a case study of how U.S. firms routinely use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid the opprobrium of doing business with Baghdad, which does not violate U.S. law as long as it occurs within the "oil-for-food" program run by the United Nations.

 

Now this is from the Washington Post article. Huh? Edit: It goes on to say that yes, the operation was bigger than originally told, but as long as it was totally legal, what's wrong?

[Guest Powerplay]

And another comment: You want us to begin openning up to Iran, yet it's bad to trade with them? I mean, if they've changed like you've said, if we began trading with a better Iran, doesn't that go to help our relations?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It's totally legal for those countries to deal with Iraq in THOSE countries, but not considering it would be illegal in OUR country.

 

Also, I'm arguing your side for the Iran thing, it's illegal so why not bust him?

[Guest Powerplay]

It's totally legal for those countries to deal with Iraq in THOSE countries, but not considering it would be illegal in OUR country.

 

Also, I'm arguing your side for the Iran thing, it's illegal so why not bust him?

What's wrong? Even the article admits it was done under the Oil for Food program, which is why the U.S. Government didn't try and go after him. What he did with Iraq was totally legal, he just renigged and said that his operations were bigger than he once said before.

 

And question: If he did all these wrongs during the mid-90's, why didn't the Clinton Administration do anything to stop it or even try and go after him?

[Guest Powerplay]

On Iran, from ElectGore.com:

 

It is debated often whether economic sanctions are of benefit or not, but one thing is for sure- so long as they are in place, they must be adhered to. While under Cheney guidance, Brown & Root reportedly went ahead and conducted business with Iran via a loophole in the sanction agreement that was in place. On a Sunday morning talk show a few weeks ago, Mr. Cheney again said that (Brown & Root) did not do anything illegal, but it is important to remember that not all morals have laws to support them yet. Brown & Root did business with Iran that was technically "legal" but was certainly immoral and against the better interests of the United States.

 

But then again, since Iran has been improving so much, wasn't it in the better interests of us to actually help them out since they have been becoming more and more liberal? I mean, we are conducting legal trade with a country you yourself has said presents no real threat to us and has been going out of it's way to improve. What's wrong here?

[Guest NoCalMike]

CNN is run by MY COMPANY (that i work for) AOL Time Warner, and we actually take tons of sh*t for a lot of things that are reported.  We are not basically run by the government.  I find it hysterical you say that everyone who doesn't agree with you is basically delusional, in the same sentence that you say the government is running CNN and every single other news agency, except ones that give the same opinion as you believe in, i would guess.

 

Mind you, im not disagreeing with some of your Cheney points.  But you made a BIG leap in faith there from Cheney to the news/government conspiracy that EVERYONE must accept because you do.

 

Conspiracy theories are wonderful covers for people who ran out of proof to back up their opinions. 

 

ITS A CONSPIRACY DAMNIT!

 

niko

Uh-huh and the other side's argument to this is to label every person who disagrees, as a "conspiracy theorist" Look, I don't sit at home taking notes on what I see on the news, waiting and hoping to find inaccurcies so I can shout conspiracy. The government having heavy influence over major media corporations is no conspiracy, it is just the truth. Who do you think heads most networks and is trying to get more, Clear Channel. This company in a matter of a few years will hold the major portion of the telecommunications business due to telecommunication being de-regulated. Yah and when the government might try and stop this, you can bet there will be a payoff. This is why I scoff and laugh when I hear on CNN or Fox about the "Dixie Chicks" banning because the media reports it as if, "stations all over the country have chosen to ban the Dixie Chicks" when in fact Clear Channel owns a station in almost every major city in the USA so that banning was the choice of ONE MAN, it was not the choice of each individual local DJ. This is why I consider the media to be a CORPORATE media more than anything else. The media didn't want to report those facts at all though, because it is not in their own interest to report on how holding monopolies over media outlets is a bad thing, because that is basically what Clear Channel(Their Bosses) are striving to do.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

CNN is run by MY COMPANY (that i work for) AOL Time Warner, and we actually take tons of sh*t for a lot of things that are reported.  We are not basically run by the government.   I find it hysterical you say that everyone who doesn't agree with you is basically delusional, in the same sentence that you say the government is running CNN and every single other news agency, except ones that give the same opinion as you believe in, i would guess.

 

Mind you, im not disagreeing with some of your Cheney points.  But you made a BIG leap in faith there from Cheney to the news/government conspiracy that EVERYONE must accept because you do.

 

Conspiracy theories are wonderful covers for people who ran out of proof to back up their opinions. 

 

ITS A CONSPIRACY DAMNIT!

 

niko

Uh-huh and the other side's argument to this is to label every person who disagrees, as a "conspiracy theorist" Look, I don't sit at home taking notes on what I see on the news, waiting and hoping to find inaccurcies so I can shout conspiracy. The government having heavy influence over major media corporations is no conspiracy, it is just the truth. Who do you think heads most networks and is trying to get more, Clear Channel. This company in a matter of a few years will hold the major portion of the telecommunications business due to telecommunication being de-regulated. Yah and when the government might try and stop this, you can bet there will be a payoff. This is why I scoff and laugh when I hear on CNN or Fox about the "Dixie Chicks" banning because the media reports it as if, "stations all over the country have chosen to ban the Dixie Chicks" when in fact Clear Channel owns a station in almost every major city in the USA so that banning was the choice of ONE MAN, it was not the choice of each individual local DJ. This is why I consider the media to be a CORPORATE media more than anything else. The media didn't want to report those facts at all though, because it is not in their own interest to report on how holding monopolies over media outlets is a bad thing, because that is basically what Clear Channel(Their Bosses) are striving to do.

Hmm, Clinton deregulated this industry, if memory serves.

 

I blame him for all of this.

-=Mike --- illogical conspiracies ARE fun