Yes, that is Total. And ironically they had billions of dollars owed to them by Saddam for their oil business. Hmm, could that be why the French so much opposed this war? Hmm, I don't know. Could that be why the French tried to keep the US out and way from those oil fields? Hmm, I don't know. Nah, I'm sure that's all a big coincidence. And Bungrider, who are you to say what sh*tty wages are. I'm sure they are getting paid relative to what their currency is worth. You know the cost of living over there right now is pretty cheap. You know the old saying, "in the land of the blind, the one eyed snake is king."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm Oh man, the good old French. France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraqâs imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraqâs largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3] Franceâs largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the countryâs oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
LOGCAP is, in effect, a multi-year supercontract. In it, the Army makes a deal with a single contractor, in this case Halliburton, to perform a wide range of unspecified services during emergency situations in the future. The last competition for LOGCAP came in 2001, when Halliburton won the contract over several other bidders. Thus, when the oil-field study was needed, Corps officials say, Halliburton was the natural place to turn. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," Corps commander Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers wrote to Waxman in April. In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted. That work received favorable notices throughout the Clinton administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics," Gore's reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which the report said provided "basic life support services â food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services â transportation, electrical, hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance." In 2001, after the Bush administration came into office, the giant LOGCAP contract expired again and another competition was held. Once again, Halliburton won the contract, and it was under that arrangement that the Iraqi-oilfield analysis was done. As the record shows, Halliburton won big government contracts under the Clinton administration, and it won big government contracts under the Bush administration. The only difference between the two is that Henry Waxman is making allegations of favoritism in the Bush administration, while he appeared untroubled by the issue during the Clinton years.
I'm afraid you missed my point. I'm not trying to compare the purity of various administrations. All I'm saying is we have a system that depends on the various branches of governemtn keeping each other in check, and that same approach also applies to the parties. If one party lets another violate campaign laws and doesn't prosecute them when it has the chance, it is asking for abuse. Now look what the Clinton administration did. The IRS was all over virtually every conservation foundation, costing them tens of millions in legal fees and untold compliance burdens. As far as I've heard, they turned up nothing. Despicable yes, but you have to admire the hardball politics involved. The Republicans entered office with the stated desire to implement a "new tone", no doubt because focus groups said they didn't like "political bickering." What has it gotten them? They compromised with Kennedy on big spending legislation, but still have had excellent judges blocked by the unprecedented use of fillibusters, Bush has been called a fraud by his new friend Kennedy and now they have this idiotic Wilson fiasco being hung on them. Maybe the voters will ignore it all and show their appreciation for the new tone with a landslide Republican victory. Nice for incumbents but what has all this compromising actually gained?
No one says it's socialist to fund a get out the vote drive. But I believe Soros is on record with some very socialist opinions himself. You have to admit that there is soemthing troubling and inappropriate about a multibillionaire who has made his money in a slightly shady fashion and is a recently naturalized citizen and who has arranged his affairs to avoid scrutiny of US regulators as far as possible, to suddenly announce that he is making massive contributions to fund a campaign to get rid of the president of his "adopted" country. I think the problem is not the "get out the vote" part, but it is the fact that Soros has seen fit to become a megaphone for the hate-Bush crowd. I know, he's entitled to his opinion, but still, it strikes me as inappropriate. For me, the bigger part of this is that it shows how idiotic the campaign finance laws are. I mean if this is legal, why should anyone's contributions be limited?
i don't know how inappropriate it really is...it's difficult for me (as a true bush-hater), but i'm trying to think of how i would've felt if soros had done this about a politician i supported. i'm also not really sure about the whole socialist who wants to screw bush thing, either...? are you guys arguing that because he's a socialist, he's going to be anti-republican in general? it just seems to me that for the first time in my short lifetime, there is a politician who is hated unbelievably by many people in his own country AND the rest of the world. i've never seen anyone hate any polician as much as many people seem to hate bush. so could someone explain how soros, being a billionaire who has exploited the benefits of the US (and NOT ONLY the US, considering his use of forex over his funds' histories), is LESS entitled to criticize a president than most other people are?? i mean, he IS a US citizen, and he does vote and is entitled to criticize anything he wants in this country -- to me, criticizing soros and calling him a socialist is just more of this --
I've heard some 'I hate Bush' comments. For the most part though I've heard (a) He's doing good - we gotta get those terrorists - thank goodness we have a tough and honest president & (b) This war isn't right, what are we doing?, terrorism is becoming a greater threat now than before. And, for those who say Bush is honest... well, when has there ever been an honest politician? Never. Dishonesty and deception are a part of the job description. The argument about Soros rages on, and thankyou AAA for a sincere reply. I don't have much of a reply, but it seems that G. Soros is exercising a right he has been granted (that we all are granted) and so I have no problem with what he is doing. Ultimately, I am not so concerned with his personal views on politics (because I have no way to influence them) as I am with the fact that he is supporting an underdog political party. In my view of things the more competitive our two parties are, the better it is for me - no matter who wins in the end. And... Bush policy scares me a little.
Actually he made a large part of his fortune in currencies, commodities, and foreign stocks & bonds, and he was trading with funds given him by non-US investors. And he didn't "exploit" anything - all his counterparties thought they would make a profit at the time, otherwise they wouldn't have made the trade. He did them a service by providing liquidity. I take it you are not a marxist who views voluntary trades as "exploitation"? However, I agree with you that he is a meddling socialist fool, and a hypocrite. Then again, so is George Bush and every US president since Hoover. The difference is that Soros can't extort your wealth via the IRS, force you to spy on your customers, or send you to jail for saying the wrong thing in public or on a computer, or detain you for life without trial or charge, as is now the case under Bush-sanctioned legislation. So, despite his objectionable politics, I hope he succeeds in removing the most anti-freedom president since FDR.
All very true, but since this is perfectly legal under the laws passed by the democratically elected US Congress and/or Senate, I don't understand your objection. What is wrong with Soros structuring his financial affairs in line with the laws of the United States?