I would of thought the decision as who got the contracts should of been taken on the basis of who was going to provide the best deal and service to the Iraqi people....irrespective of nationality.

No. Only US controlled corporations are awarded contingency logistics and engineering contracts. Halliburton won that contract and the contingency is that their services would be in a time of war or security crisis. Approval for a foreign contolled corporation contract for this contingency would not pass the State Department's stamp of approval.

That does not mean the US government does not have contracts with foreign controlled corporations. They exist.

I think you've missed my point. We're constantly being told by some posters here that going to Iraq was all about getting rid of a brutal dictator, bringing democracy to Iraq and freeing the Iraqi people.

Now if thats true. then contracts should of been awarded on the basis of what was best for the Iraqi people and in line with the wishes of the provisional government etc etc. So if the Iraqi people wanted the contracts to go to a French company or a German company then thats what should have happended.

Heck Agentorange, you've done it now. I can see the neocons' and Kool-Aid drinkers' heads exploding from here.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

The contract with Halliburton is with the US DOD, not with the Iraqi government, so I suppose I have missed your point.

What you are missing is that Halliburton is only one company. It is simply mentioned more than others because of the moonbats. You can easily see that many other companies have been involved, and that they heavily try to focus on using local companies. Halliburton is simply the best company for this kind of work, so why not get the best?
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

To the untrained eyes of most whiny Bush bashers & Freedom Leechers, they would love to compare this to the traitor offerings of COMMIE BILLY!

Billy sent Madeline Alldim to give Kim a BJ, basketball, and the start of a Nuclear weapons program, as well and oil & money!

Now Bush will also give them Fuel oil and possibility Aid financially, BUT there is a MAJOR difference!! No nuclear assistance and the talks were Unilateral instead of Aldim's idiocy, relaying Bills Traitor policies and the promise of Hillary in the sack!

THE DIFFEERENCE?? They will be a lot slower bucking their #1 Ally and their #1 supplier of life sustaining commodities! Did I mention Bush didn't give them ONE damn thing they can use Militarily as opposed to Commie Billy America's TOP Traitor and WORST POTUS ever!!

I know that Halliburton is only one of many companies involved in Iraq, and it may well be the best for the roles it is undertaking. But, wouldn't that be for the Iraqi people to decide for themselves ? If memory serves Bremner tied all sorts of pre conditions into the formation of the Iraqi provisional government, for example widespread privatisation to an extent not even seen in the USA. Allowing foreign oil companies to manage Iraqi oil etc etc. My point is very simple. These decisions should have been taken by the Iraqi people themselves with no pre conditions attached

From Lincolns Gettysburg address:

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "

Now, thats a fine sentiment and one I agree with whole heartedly. But it seems to me that there is precious little of that in the way Iraqi affairs have been handled. When I see the Iraqi government being elected by the Iraqi people on a manifesto of privatisation, inviting foreign companies in to manage their industry etc then I'll believe thats what they want, until such times I'm inclined to believe thats what they've been given - not the same thing at all.

I've started reading through the USAID site, there's some interesting stuff in there and I'm going to stick with it, but I found the following noteworthy:

"USAID is an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State. Our Work supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting:
economic growth, agriculture and trade;
global health; and,
democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.
We provide assistance in four regions of the world:"

So, what happens if US foreign policy objectives aren't the same thing as the objectives ,wants, or needs of the country they're in ?

I am on record as saying I think this is a bad deal…..we or I should say, the UN and south korea have deal where in they buy goods from the kaesong industrial district….in Nor korea..and what happens? Kim takes 80% of the money supposed to be paid to these workers for himself…..you cannot deal with vermon..and this will, too, prv to be juts band aid..we are enabling this shit…that’s all….enabling him to survive longer than he deserves..while I agree if we stopped all aid, the nor. Korean people would suffer, lets juts sit back and ponder how much more they suffer under his rule………day to day………

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

What would happen is that country would not get US aid for economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health; and democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.

My point exactly.

This was your post:
Apples to Oranges. Clinton made a bad foriegn policy move when he attempted to appease a dictator. Rumsfeld was a private citizen whose company made a smart financial decision. I dont even know that Rumsfeld had anything to do with it.

You stated that Rums probably wasn't involved. This was clearly not true. Just admit that Clinton sometimes sucked and so did Rums (moreso IMO).

My main point is that even he was increasing business, he did this out of the sheer irony that he doesn't want N Korea to have WMD, yet he supported that contract to give it to them via ABB.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

And again, your article does not say he was involved. It is hearsay from other people, lots of "probablies." We still dont even know if he was involved, and thats a fact, althought he likely was. As for the irony, I dont see it. He did what he was supposed to do. Make money for his business as an officer, and speak out against WMDs as a VP. Its no surprise that business interests differ from govt interests. Furthermore, he was supporting an angreement that was specifically designed to LIMIT NK ability to get nukes.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

But why would you "do as you say, not as you do"? Then again, all politicians are like that.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

It would be nearly impossible for him NOT to know in an operation THAT risque. Plus, usually when people say "no comment" it derrives guilt. He never comments on this issue, so there you go.

I don't care if he is selling dildoes to North Korea. If he is against it, he shouldn't be contributing to their program if he's against it. If he's against it, then he sure as hell doesn't show it.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984