Both Haliburton and Schlumberger have a vast array of companies other than oil-related companies under their umbrella. What is the point?
Agreed...but if people were saying you were going to murder your Dad for his money before he ever died, you happen to be in financial trouble at the time, and your friend ( the executor) decided that you and you alone should see the will....
I will not even address this lunacy. pgabriel, It seems to me as though the basis for each of your "counterarguments" is nothing more than picking some spurious example that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, to offer evidence that someone's theory is incorrect. I have never seem you objectively analyze a situation by presenting facts. The basis for all of your arguments are one-sentence, superficial, counter-claims that typically have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your above quote is yet another one of those. Until you actually start providing substance in your posts, and spend more than 2 seconds crafting it, I will continue to pay you no heed. I challenge you to think critically and present facts objectively, instead of your simplistic, superficial, completely irrelevant comebacks that you are so accustomed to making. Don't expect to receive a meaningful, well thought-out response to your typical mindless babble.
My point is that Halliburton has relevant experience in reconstruction projects, like the one in Iraq. My point is they are highly qualified. This is indisputable.
First of all you have never offered evidence, you stated that Halliburton is more qualified than Shlumberger because Shlumberger has a wide range of services and Halliburton specializes in Oilfield reconstruction. I countered that point by saying that Halliburton built Minute Maid Park, so your argument was wrong. If you are too slow to follow I'm sorry. The same argument was refuted by someone else. And if your point is that Halliburton has experience in reconstruction, you haven't provided any evidence of that either. Once again, thanks for the lecture, but as usual your argument is lacking substance.
Halliburton got many of the reconstruction projects after Gulf War I. I figured this was so blatantly obvious to even the most novice of political observers, that I wouldn't need to spell it out. I imagine Kellogg Brown and Root built Minute Maid Park, they are a subsidiary of Halliburton that engages in construction. Another subsidiary of Halliburton will be doing most of the oilfield services work in Iraq. They are two separate entities, housed under one parent. By the way, here is how you spell S-C-H-L-U-M-B-E-R-G-E-R
You can spell Schlumberger, you're right, your arguments are better. And Halliburton got the job 12 years ago is not much of an argument. Besides, I'm not saying they shouldn't get the job, I'm saying that the process should be open to bidding. I believe Unocal got the job to build Afghanistan's pipeline. By that logic, should they get the job in Iraq.
You forgot to mention that Schlumberger is hq-ed in Paris (and in NYC btw). The Bushies certainly would not award this contract to SLB, due to its French connection. SLB could have done this contract, no problem. To believe otherwise is nonsensical.
That is a good point too and quite frankly I don't real care that he was biased against a company headquarted in France.
