Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (4472)	11/13/2003 9:42:34 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

"What does that tell you then, in that world of yours where countries' decisions to go to war or not are determined by the financial benefits of a few?" That's the way it's been all through history, why would today be any different. Some very powerful people in France had a financial interest in maintaining the status quo in Iraq, just as there were numerous financial interests in America determined to upset that status quo. They both have the ear of the people in power in government. It's always been that way, in my view. I'm not saying America was morally right or wrong to go to war (although I have always been in favor of deposing of Saddam), but you're creating a moral scale where France is good and America is bad. Just as America went to war for what you think are dubious reasons, France opposed the war for its own batch of dubious reasons as well. At the end of the day France was in favor of supporting (or should I say respecting the soveriengty) a regional troublemaking genocidal dictator and the U.S. wanted him ousted. Each side has an array of moral flavors attached to their actions and desires, but neither has a monopoly on what is "right."

To: zonder who wrote (4472)	11/14/2003 1:09:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

You mean like Haliburton? What does that tell you then, in that world of yours where countries' decisions to go to war or not are determined by the financial benefits of a few? And would you prefer that it had been TotalFina-Elf? The Halliburton contract was NOT illegal, nor was it politically motivated. In fact, the "sole source" contract was originated by DOD, not the White House. DOD, in order to advise the WH of the potential political repercussions of its SS contract, gave them a "heads up"... The reason HAL got the contract is because they their KB&R subsidiary had the assets in place to immediately support the mission. But even now, we're seeing that HAL is being required to resubmit through the bidding process for continued contractual work on this project.. In other words, the govt Contract Officer has opted not to excercise the option to grant HAL another year. Sole Source contracting is not illegal, and is only controversial when certain people try and create linkages between political officials and their former employers. Too bad we're not able to make that linkage between Chirac and French business corruption... He's apparently immune from prosecution while he's in office.. Hawk