Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2008, 10:43 AM   #1
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
I don't think there are many companies with the capacity of Haliburton. Do some research on that one. We're talking thousands of trucks and tankers on the ground, thousands of personnel, etc. all available tomorrow to compete with Haliburton. I know it is tempting to assume that Haliburton got the contract due to Cheney. But, tell me, who else could have done what Haliburton did?
If Halliburton is best suited for the job, then they'd most likely win the bid anyway, but you must still allow other companies to TRY to compete for the contract, otherwise there's no semblance of competition in our "free trade" economy (and all you're left with at that point is the State appointing companies to tasks - that's the definition of socialism...)



EDIT: I just noticed I'm 2 pages behind in this discussion, so this post probably isn't relevant at this point (but it's not all that relevant anyway when people are unwilling to listen to the facts...)
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 11-03-2008 at 10:45 AM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 10:30 PM   #2
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
If Halliburton is best suited for the job, then they'd most likely win the bid anyway, but you must still allow other companies to TRY to compete for the contract, otherwise there's no semblance of competition in our "free trade" economy (and all you're left with at that point is the State appointing companies to tasks - that's the definition of socialism...)



EDIT: I just noticed I'm 2 pages behind in this discussion, so this post probably isn't relevant at this point (but it's not all that relevant anyway when people are unwilling to listen to the facts...)
We still don't know the details behind the decision.
The Administration and Top Brass have national security reasons at stake and I suspect that the minutes of the meetings will be "classified" for 30 years.
That still doesn't mean corruption/fraud occured.
It is still hard to argue that Halliburton was a bad choice since they have been successful.

And, I'll add that McCain agrees with you. He insisted on open bidding on the refueling tankers that resulted in picking AirBus over Boeing. But, that was a contract not directly involved with a specific military action. It is hard to compare picking Halliburton to play directly in the Sand Box and issue of picking AirBus over Boeing for refueling tankers.


Repeating myself again as I have already answered that.

It is crazy to think that the price of the bid is what drives an active military action. Success and security are paramount.

We don't have the details that drove the decision. We won't get the details. Lawsuits won't force the release of classified data so long as there is a good reason to keep it classified.

The logic that the only concern is money is just really narrow and inaccurate.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.