Quick! Invest in Halliburton!
gatt
"March 12, 2007 - Halliburton Co., currently the largest military contractor
in Iraq with billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts, announced Sunday
that it was planning to move its CEO and corporate headquarters from Houston
to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates."
Their loyalties speak for themselves.
lein
Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats that get upset when we
don't award federal contracts, like the Iraqi rebuilding effort, to
foreign companies. Haliburton's move will make life a lot easier for
the Democrats.
gatt
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1173720578.9...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 10:10 am, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
>> "March 12, 2007 - Halliburton Co., currently the largest military
>> contractor
>> in Iraq with billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts, announced Sunday
>> that it was planning to move its CEO and corporate headquarters from
>> Houston
>> to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates."
>>
>> Their loyalties speak for themselves.
> Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats
I like how whenever somebody challenges a right-wing bastion, rather than
addressing it head on, the weaker debating types have to fall back on a
sarcastc rant against the Democrats (or Republicans) that's based more on
rhetoric than actual fact.
"Newt Gingrich had an affair." "Yeah, well, the Democrats..."
>Haliburton's move will make life a lot easier for the Democrats.
-c
Corky K
You can ALWAYS expect that from lein. I'd like to see him justify the loss of
corporate tax revenue the US will suffer in contrast with the massive outgiving
from the same government. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Expect
crickets or something about Clinton.
>
>>Haliburton's move will make life a lot easier for the Democrats.
>
>-c
>
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
lein
> Suddenly, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com>, blurted out the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"lein" <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:1173720578.9...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Mar 12, 10:10 am, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
> >>> "March 12, 2007 - Halliburton Co., currently the largest military
> >>> contractor
> >>> in Iraq with billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts, announced Sunday
> >>> that it was planning to move its CEO and corporate headquarters from
> >>> Houston
> >>> to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates."
>
> >>> Their loyalties speak for themselves.
>
> >> Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats
>
> >I like how whenever somebody challenges a right-wing bastion, rather than
> >addressing it head on, the weaker debating types have to fall back on a
> >sarcastc rant against the Democrats (or Republicans) that's based more on
> >rhetoric than actual fact.
>
> >"Newt Gingrich had an affair." "Yeah, well, the Democrats..."
>
> You can ALWAYS expect that from lein. I'd like to see him justify the loss of
> corporate tax revenue the US will suffer in contrast with the massive outgiving
> from the same government. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Expect
> crickets or something about Clinton.
I don't have to justify anything, I voted against this position when I
didn't vote for John Kerry.
gatt
>> >> Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats
>>
>> >I like how whenever somebody challenges a right-wing bastion, rather
>> >than
>> >addressing it head on, the weaker debating types have to fall back on a
>> >sarcastc rant against the Democrats
>> You can ALWAYS expect that from lein.
LOL! Case in point:
> I don't have to justify anything, I voted against this position when I
> didn't vote for John Kerry.
Gotta squeeze a Democrat reference in there.
-c
lein
Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
gatt
>
> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>
> I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
> they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
But the justification for many on the right wing about why Halliburton's
name kept showing up in no-bid government contracts is that no other company
was capable of doing it.
So I guess America has lost that capability.
Doesn't bother me a bit, myself. I wonder what Soros thinks now that he
owns 2% of it.
-c
lein
> "lein" <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173730980....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
> > for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>
> > I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
> > they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
>
> But the justification for many on the right wing about why Halliburton's
> name kept showing up in no-bid government contracts is that no other company
> was capable of doing it.
>
> So I guess America has lost that capability.
Perhaps, at least when it comes to a one stop shop.
>
> Doesn't bother me a bit, myself. I wonder what Soros thinks now that he
> owns 2% of it.
He may have known beforehand, thus prompting his investment. These
things don't just suddenly happen.
autorun
How many Americans do they employ?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17581257
Pat Sullivan / AP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urness, head of Energy Research at Calyon Securities, told “Street
Signs” that people are overlooking a basic point about Halliburton and
its much-debated Dubai strategy: The company will maintain its Houston
headquarters and is opening an office in Dubai to better serve the
Middle East.
“The distinction people have not made is that (Halliburton is) opening a
corporate headquarters in Dubai,” he said Monday. “(Halliburton) isn’t
moving their corporate headquarters and (Dubai) isn’t going to be their
primary headquarters ... I would characterize Dubai as the Houston of
the eastern hemisphere. So, it makes a great deal of sense to me for it
to be located there.”
Urness said the Middle East now represents about 20% of Halliburton’s
market, but is growing much faster than North America, which now
generates about 50% of the company’s business.
autorun
> Suddenly, "gatt" <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com>, blurted out the following:
>
>> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173720578.9...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 12, 10:10 am, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
>>>> "March 12, 2007 - Halliburton Co., currently the largest military
>>>> contractor
>>>> in Iraq with billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts, announced Sunday
>>>> that it was planning to move its CEO and corporate headquarters from
>>>> Houston
>>>> to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates."
>>>>
>>>> Their loyalties speak for themselves.
>>> Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats
>> I like how whenever somebody challenges a right-wing bastion, rather than
>> addressing it head on, the weaker debating types have to fall back on a
>> sarcastc rant against the Democrats (or Republicans) that's based more on
>> rhetoric than actual fact.
>>
>> "Newt Gingrich had an affair." "Yeah, well, the Democrats..."
>
> You can ALWAYS expect that from lein. I'd like to see him justify the loss of
> corporate tax revenue the US will suffer
Zero.
They remain a US corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware.
Why are you spreading mistruths?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17581257
Halliburton Isn't Abandoning U.S. For Dubai, Analyst Argues
Pat Sullivan / AP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urness, head of Energy Research at Calyon Securities, told “Street
Signs” that people are overlooking a basic point about Halliburton and
its much-debated Dubai strategy: The company will maintain its Houston
headquarters and is opening an office in Dubai to better serve the
Middle East.
“The distinction people have not made is that (Halliburton is) opening a
corporate headquarters in Dubai,” he said Monday. “(Halliburton) isn’t
moving their corporate headquarters and (Dubai) isn’t going to be their
primary headquarters ... I would characterize Dubai as the Houston of
the eastern hemisphere. So, it makes a great deal of sense to me for it
to be located there.”
Urness said the Middle East now represents about 20% of Halliburton’s
market, but is growing much faster than North America, which now
generates about 50% of the company’s business.
“Other oil field service companies have been targeting the Middle East,
North Africa and all of Eurasia for growth going forward,” Urness said.
autorun
handled by their KBR division which is being spun off.
autorun
> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1173730980....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
>> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>>
>> I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
>> they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
>
> But the justification for many on the right wing about why Halliburton's
> name kept showing up in no-bid government contracts is that no other company
> was capable of doing it.
A lie, there simply were no EXPERIENCED bidders at the time.
> So I guess America has lost that capability.
Why?
The corporation is not leaving, they are staying here, incorporated in
the state of Delaware.
Why are you misrepresenting this?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17581257
Halliburton Isn't Abandoning U.S. For Dubai, Analyst Argues
Pat Sullivan / AP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urness, head of Energy Research at Calyon Securities, told “Street
Signs” that people are overlooking a basic point about Halliburton and
its much-debated Dubai strategy: The company will maintain its Houston
headquarters and is opening an office in Dubai to better serve the
Middle East.
“The distinction people have not made is that (Halliburton is) opening a
corporate headquarters in Dubai,” he said Monday. “(Halliburton) isn’t
moving their corporate headquarters and (Dubai) isn’t going to be their
primary headquarters ... I would characterize Dubai as the Houston of
the eastern hemisphere. So, it makes a great deal of sense to me for it
to be located there.”
Urness said the Middle East now represents about 20% of Halliburton’s
market, but is growing much faster than North America, which now
generates about 50% of the company’s business.
“Other oil field service companies have been targeting the Middle East,
North Africa and all of Eurasia for growth going forward,” Urness said.
> Doesn't bother me a bit, myself. I wonder what Soros thinks now that he
> owns 2% of it.
How many bad investments have you seen him make?
autorun
> On Mar 12, 1:26 pm, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
>> "lein" <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1173730980....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
>>> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>>> I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
>>> they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
>> But the justification for many on the right wing about why Halliburton's
>> name kept showing up in no-bid government contracts is that no other company
>> was capable of doing it.
>>
>> So I guess America has lost that capability.
>
> Perhaps, at least when it comes to a one stop shop.
America has NOT lost the company, they remain a US corporation
incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17581257
>> Doesn't bother me a bit, myself. I wonder what Soros thinks now that he
>> owns 2% of it.
>
> He may have known beforehand, thus prompting his investment. These
> things don't just suddenly happen.
He knew, as all educated investors did, that they were going to spin off
their KBR division.
Last Update: 4:40 PM ET Feb 26, 2007
HAL, , ) late Monday announced plans to dispose of its remaining
interest in KBR, Inc. through a split-off exchange offer to Halliburton
shareholders. The company will offer 135.6 million shares of KBR at an
exchange ratio to be determined by a "specific formula," according to
Halliburton. If the offer is completed but under-subscribed, Halliburton
said it will distribute the remaining shares through a special dividend.
gatt
"autorun" <scr...@post.zg> wrote in message
news:NulJh.72368$8x2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
> Mark Urness, head of Energy Research at Calyon Securities, told “Street
> Signs” that people are overlooking a basic point about Halliburton and its
> much-debated Dubai strategy: The company will maintain its Houston
> headquarters and is opening an office in Dubai to better serve the Middle
> East.
>
> “The distinction people have not made is that (Halliburton is) opening a
> corporate headquarters in Dubai,” he said Monday. “(Halliburton) isn’t
> moving their corporate headquarters and (Dubai) isn’t going to be their
> primary headquarters ...
I'll believe it when I see it.
-c
autorun
Perhaps the difference between "a" and "the" is not clear to you.
You can also access their most recent 10K which contains no mention of
incorporation in any other nation.
"HOUSTON and UAE – Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL) announced today at a
regional energy conference in the Kingdom of Bahrain the opening of _a
corporate headquarters office_ in the United Arab Emirates...
The opening of _a headquarters_ in Dubai is the next step in a strategic
plan announced in 2006 to focus on expanding its customer relations with
national oil companies while concentrating more of the company’s
investments and resources in growing its business in the Eastern
Hemisphere...
The company will continue to maintain _a corporate office_ in Houston..."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill0313,0,7287426.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
It's not clear what the tax implications of the move to the low-tax city
in the United Arab Emirates will be, but the company's current CEO Dave
Lesar said in a statement Monday that the move would help Halliburton
expand its oil businesses in the Mideast and Asia.
The Chinese government and corporations have been investing and
developing in Dubai and clearly Halliburton wants a bigger piece of that
pie. Furthermore, with many of the company’s subsidiaries located
outside of the US, Halliburton is notorious for using tax havens and in
Dubai, they will be paying next to zero in corporate taxes for the most
part. Many employees In Dubai, who also live and work in one of their
investment zones could be exempt from taxes as well....
We are not sure how much Congress can actually do since this does not
involve a cross border acquisition and Halliburton is a private company
that will maintain some operations in the US. In order to keep the
interests of their defense contracts in Iraq separate from their oil
interests in Dubai, they will also be spinning off their KBR defense
subsidiary into a completely separate company that will remain in the US...
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=155995
The business community in particular argues that in a fiercely
competitive global economy where national tax regimes can vary widely,
minimising tax payments is a competitive necessity and OFCs are one
solution.
Ermine Todd III
> gatt wrote:
>> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173730980....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
>>> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>>>
>>> I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
>>> they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
>>
>> But the justification for many on the right wing about why Halliburton's
>> name kept showing up in no-bid government contracts is that no other
>> company was capable of doing it.
>
> A lie, there simply were no EXPERIENCED bidders at the time.
>
Exactly - at that particular moment between midnight and 0001 they were the
only bidders in the room - with Safavian (sp?) and Cheney. There was NO
excuse or rationale that was of benefit to the country that supported
issuing a no-bid cost plus contract to a company that had already proven to
be corrupt.
Ermine Todd III
Actually, they currently maintain as their official mailing address a POBox
the Cayman islands as their point of incorporation and they ARE moving their
headquarters out of Houston to Dubai.
autorun
Can you right now identify the competing firms with experience in
military catering and intel support logistics?
Araserv?
UPS?
Wackenhut?
If you're not able to list which companies have recently performed these
functions in a war zone to satisfaction you certainly have little to
add to the subject.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml
Services performed by Halliburton, through its Brown and Root
subsidiary, include building and managing military bases, logistical
support for the 1,200 intelligence officers hunting Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction, delivering mail and producing millions of hot meals.
autorun
Please read the material presented more carefully, they are establishing
_a corporate headquarters_ not "the" corporate headquarters. They remain
incorporated in the state of Delaware.
autorun
Please stop spreading disinformation.
HALLIBURTON CO (0000045012)
SIC: 1389 - Oil & Gas Field Services, NEC
State location: TX | State of Inc.: DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231
Business Address
1401MCKINNEY
1401 MCKINNEY
HOUSTON TX 77010
7137592600
Mailing Address
1401 MCKINNEY
1401 MCKINNEY
HOUSTON TX 77010
Bill Shatzer
> On Mar 12, 1:03 pm, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats
>>>>>I like how whenever somebody challenges a right-wing bastion, rather
>>>>>than
>>>>>addressing it head on, the weaker debating types have to fall back on a
>>>>>sarcastc rant against the Democrats
>>>>You can ALWAYS expect that from lein.
>>LOL! Case in point:
>>>I don't have to justify anything, I voted against this position when I
>>>didn't vote for John Kerry.
>>Gotta squeeze a Democrat reference in there.
> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
Well, it might have been useful had the French or the Germans had a
stake in Iraq. They might have been more cooperative and supportive had
they had a dog in that particular fight.
But, oh no, the dubya regime decided that only the "coallition of the
willing" could participate in the supposedly lucrative reconstrution effort.
A decision right up there with the decision to disband the Iraqi
military and to not secure the ammunition dumps.
Brilliant, simply brilliant. Like most of what the dubya regime has
attempted.
Peace and justice,
Corky K
>gatt wrote:
>> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173730980....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
>>> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>>>
>>> I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
>>> they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
>>
>> But the justification for many on the right wing about why Halliburton's
>> name kept showing up in no-bid government contracts is that no other company
>> was capable of doing it.
>
>A lie, there simply were no EXPERIENCED bidders at the time.
>
>> So I guess America has lost that capability.
>
>Why?
>
>The corporation is not leaving, they are staying here, incorporated in
>the state of Delaware.
>
>Why are you misrepresenting this?
The misrepresentation came initially from the media, Spammy. Under Delaware
corporate law (I once started a corporation in Delaware, so I am at least
basically familiar with their laws in this direction), the corporate
headquarters must be in that state. Many companies incorporate in Delaware due
to their favorable corporate tax laws. They maintain their 'corporate
headquarters' there (which can be a small office). Many Delaware attornies offer
their services as the corporate address (corporate headquarters address) for all
of the clients who have used their services to incorporate. That Halliburton was
'Houston based' is right in physical location only. Calling the Houston location
(or the Dubai location) 'corporate headquarters' is like calling every employee
a CEO. Simply not true. The media spun this story. The Dubai office is no more a
corporate headquarters than Houston. They are incorporated in Delware and their
corporate headquarters, by definition, must remain in that state. I'll leave it
to your Googling as to why it is favorable to incorporate in the state of
Delaware. This was the answer I had hoped from lein, who is too busy tweaking on
the Dems to become educated about such things.
>
>http://www.cnbc.com/id/17581257
>
>Halliburton Isn't Abandoning U.S. For Dubai, Analyst Argues
>
>Pat Sullivan / AP
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Mark Urness, head of Energy Research at Calyon Securities, told “Street
>Signs” that people are overlooking a basic point about Halliburton and
>its much-debated Dubai strategy: The company will maintain its Houston
>headquarters and is opening an office in Dubai to better serve the
>Middle East.
>
>“The distinction people have not made is that (Halliburton is) opening a
>corporate headquarters in Dubai,” he said Monday. “(Halliburton) isn’t
>moving their corporate headquarters and (Dubai) isn’t going to be their
>primary headquarters ... I would characterize Dubai as the Houston of
>the eastern hemisphere. So, it makes a great deal of sense to me for it
>to be located there.”
>
>Urness said the Middle East now represents about 20% of Halliburton’s
>market, but is growing much faster than North America, which now
>generates about 50% of the company’s business.
>
>“Other oil field service companies have been targeting the Middle East,
>North Africa and all of Eurasia for growth going forward,” Urness said.
>
>
>> Doesn't bother me a bit, myself. I wonder what Soros thinks now that he
>> owns 2% of it.
>
>How many bad investments have you seen him make?
--
Don Homuth
wrote:
>On Mar 12, 10:10 am, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
>> "March 12, 2007 - Halliburton Co., currently the largest military contractor
>> in Iraq with billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts, announced Sunday
>> that it was planning to move its CEO and corporate headquarters from Houston
>> to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates."
>>
>> Their loyalties speak for themselves.
>
>Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats that get upset when we
>don't award federal contracts, like the Iraqi rebuilding effort, to
>foreign companies.
Um -- doncha rather believe that Iraqis should have been hired to
rebuild Iraq?
Rather than the Murken companies, who don't seem actually to be doing
that.
Iraqis need a financial stake in their own country, but certainly We
aren't providing it. It was a Major screwup.
>Haliburton's move will make life a lot easier for
>the Democrats.
Nah -- Halliburton's move will make life easier for Halliburton.
That's been their company policy since Cheney ran the place.
Ermine Todd III
> Ermine Todd III wrote:
>> "autorun" <scr...@post.zg> wrote in message
>> news:XAlJh.72436$8x2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>>> gatt wrote:
>>>> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1173730980....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
>>>>> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have no problems if Haliburton loses out on future contracts,
>>>>> they can live off the UAE's defense dept.
>>>>
>>>> But the justification for many on the right wing about why
>>>> Halliburton's name kept showing up in no-bid government contracts is
>>>> that no other company was capable of doing it.
>>>
>>> A lie, there simply were no EXPERIENCED bidders at the time.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly - at that particular moment between midnight and 0001 they were
>> the only bidders in the room - with Safavian (sp?) and Cheney. There was
>> NO excuse or rationale that was of benefit to the country that supported
>> issuing a no-bid cost plus contract to a company that had already proven
>> to be corrupt.
>
> Can you right now identify the competing firms with experience in military
> catering and intel support logistics?
Again, irrelevant - whether I can or not is not at question. What is at
question is why the contract was no-bid and then on top of that was
cost-plus. Since Bush, et.al., had been preparing to invade since his first
day in office (at least) the excuse "... that it had to be done right then"
doesn't cut it. Why weren't war-profiteering commissions set up by the GOP
in Congress? Why was Halliburton the only company even considered? Why
weren't the contracts shopped out to so that others could put together bids?
The reality is that Bush, et.al., viewed these as another way to line their
(and their supporters') pockets.
autorun
> lein wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 1:03 pm, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats
>
>>>>>> I like how whenever somebody challenges a right-wing bastion, rather
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> addressing it head on, the weaker debating types have to fall back
>>>>>> on a
>>>>>> sarcastc rant against the Democrats
>
>>>>> You can ALWAYS expect that from lein.
>
>>> LOL! Case in point:
>
>>>> I don't have to justify anything, I voted against this position when I
>>>> didn't vote for John Kerry.
>
>>> Gotta squeeze a Democrat reference in there.
>
>> Because one of his positions was to hire companies outside the U.S.
>> for Iraq, at the expense of companies within the U.S.
>
> Well, it might have been useful had the French or the Germans had a
> stake in Iraq. They might have been more cooperative and supportive had
> they had a dog in that particular fight.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power
by Carrie Satterlee
WebMemo #217
France
France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's 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 Iraq's 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]
France's 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 country's 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.
France's Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76
million contract to rehabilitate Iraq's telephone system.[5]
In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming
equipment to Iraq.[6]
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with
Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program,
according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French
companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million
that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some
of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN
documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage
facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.
Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from
arms sales in the 1970s and '80s.[8]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent
of Iraq's arms imports.[9]
Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million
annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third
parties.[10]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi
domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward
for Germany's "firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a
military attack against Iraq." It was also reported that over 101 German
companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a
German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and
spare parts.[12]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for
German trucks and spare parts.[13]
Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the
1980's.[14]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of
illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in
question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is
allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein's Al Fao Supercannon project.[15]
An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more
than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since
around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have
supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.
autorun
Thank you for repeating the media's lies and then finally admitting your
complicity in doing so.
http://mycorporation.com/newsletter/archives/0510-2005.htm
Delaware's advantages as a place of incorporation range from the
Delaware General Corporation Law to the flexibility built into the
corporate formation process.
Incorporating in Delaware is generally less expensive than most other
states. The initial charge for incorporating in Delaware can be as low
as $89.00; the annual franchise tax can be as low as $65.00 in many
cases; and the cost of continuing operations is low as well. There is no
Delaware corporate income tax for corporations that are formed in
Delaware so long as they do not transact business in Delaware.
Another benefit of Delaware incorporation is Delaware's extensive and
often easily interpretable law. Delaware has a separate Court of
Chancery (a business court) that does not use juries, but instead
utilizes merit-based (not elected) judges. Because there are no juries,
decisions from the Chancery Court are issued as written opinions, and as
such, Delaware has a large body of written legal precedent to rely upon.
autorun
> On 12 Mar 2007 10:29:39 -0700, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 10:10 am, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com> wrote:
>>> "March 12, 2007 - Halliburton Co., currently the largest military contractor
>>> in Iraq with billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts, announced Sunday
>>> that it was planning to move its CEO and corporate headquarters from Houston
>>> to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates."
>>>
>>> Their loyalties speak for themselves.
>> Don't worry, in the end, it's the Democrats that get upset when we
>> don't award federal contracts, like the Iraqi rebuilding effort, to
>> foreign companies.
>
> Um -- doncha rather believe that Iraqis should have been hired to
> rebuild Iraq?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002389176_spend19.html
Overall, the U.S. reconstruction program is run by fewer than 1,000
American civilians who farm out most of the work to Western corporations
stationed on U.S. bases.
Most of the onsite labor is local: Nearly 200,000 Iraqi workers have
been hired, infusing money into the local economy, according to USAID
and the Project and Contracting Office.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDF/is_33/ai_110805505
Task Force Neighborhood, an aggressive community outreach program, was
developed by V Corps to help Iraqis rebuild their country. The
initiative consists of "task forces" of coalition forces that go into
neighborhoods and assist hired Iraqis with projects. V Corps's 130th
Engineer Brigade took the lead in this effort. After gathering support
from the local communities with these Task Force Neighborhood projects,
Iraqis are contracted to develop and execute their own local community
repair projects.
Putting Iraqis back to work is our main intent. The 555th uses Office of
Coalition Provisional Authority funds to hire local Iraqi workers and
equipment operators. We also contract for resources such as rock,
gravel, and sand to complete infrastructure projects that require them.
Some of these projects are for joint use by the Iraqis and U.S. military.
autorun
You have failed to establish any competing firms with field experience.
In situations of that nature a no-bid contract is de rigeur.
Thank you for establishing your inability to address the topic in a
factual manner.
Corky K
You really aren't worth all of the time on this, Spammy, but I will go you one
better. Many of the subsidiaries of Halliburton are incorporated on their own
and have offices outside of the US. Brown & Root Services, for example, is
incorporated outside of the US and thus has been able to do business with
countries under US sanctions, such as Iran. This action has the Department of
Justice investigating Halliburton. But hasn't been enough to open the bidding to
other capable firms.
Oh yeah, one other thing. There is one sentence in your posted article below
that is probably the sole reason for incorporating in Delaware. That is 'There
is no Delaware corporate income tax for corporations that are formed in
Delaware so long as they do not transact business in Delaware.' The cost of
incorporation and annual franchise tax is indeed low, but inconsequential for a
large multi-national. And Delaware is so small, it is relatively easy NOT to do
business there.
--
autorun
Incorrrect, there is no Brown and Root, the company in question is named
KBR.
http://www.kbr.com/corporate/OfficeLocationsList.aspx
Locations
Corporate Office
601 Jefferson Avenue
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 713.753.2000
03/02/07 8-K :
KBR is incorporated in Delaware, which remains INSIDE the country.
Brown and Root is not a valid corporation name.
http://www.kbr.com/corporate/corporate_governance/corporate_governance_guidelines/index.aspx
The methods of communication with the Board include mail (Board of
Directors c/o Director of Business Conduct, KBR, Inc., P.O. Box 3406,
Houston, Texas
Your information on BRS is old, business units are not incorporated.
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1999/brsnws_042199.jsp
1999 Press Releases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 21, 1999
Halliburton's Brown & Root Services Provides Logistics Services to
Support U.S. Forces in Albania
DALLAS, Texas - Brown & Root Services (BRS), a _business unit_ of
Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL), is providing logistics support services
to U.S. Army soldiers being deployed for operations in Albania.
Brown & Root Services, one of America's top federal contractors, was
selected by the United States Army as the "Public Works Contractor of
the Year" for its work at Fort Benning, Georgia.
and thus has been able to do business with
> countries under US sanctions, such as Iran. This action has the Department of
> Justice investigating Halliburton. But hasn't been enough to open the bidding to
> other capable firms.
Please identify the firms with recent field experience in the areas of
military logistical support.
> Oh yeah, one other thing. There is one sentence in your posted article below
> that is probably the sole reason for incorporating in Delaware. That is 'There
> is no Delaware corporate income tax for corporations that are formed in
> Delaware so long as they do not transact business in Delaware.' The cost of
> incorporation and annual franchise tax is indeed low, but inconsequential for a
> large multi-national. And Delaware is so small, it is relatively easy NOT to do
> business there.
Thank you for illuminating the obvious.
Nevada as well offers tax advantages.
States which do so offer incentives to corporations to form there.
This is SOP.
Corky K
Not exactly true. There are 143 subsidiaries called either KBR or Kellog, Brown
and Root that serve different functions in different lands. There are also three
different subsidiaries called Brown and Root(Construction Pty, Ltd., Projects
Pty, Ltd., Cayman Holdings, Inc.). Two incorporated in Australia and the third
in the Cayman Islands.
>http://www.kbr.com/corporate/OfficeLocationsList.aspx
>
>Locations
>Corporate Office
>601 Jefferson Avenue
>Houston, TX 77002
>Phone: 713.753.2000
>
>
>03/02/07 8-K :
>
>KBR is incorporated in Delaware, which remains INSIDE the country.
Absolutely wrong. There are numerous branches of KBR, incorporated in various
countries. As a matter of fact, of the 143 subsidiaries of Halliburton, only 36
are incorporated in the US. There are 25 KBR (and Kellog, Brown & Root)
subsidiaries alone, only seven of which are US corporations. They have been
scrutinized by the US government for using the Panamanian KBR to do business in
Iran. There is, however, one branch of KBR that is incorporated in Delaware. So
I guess you are 1/143 correct.
ABOUT HALLIBURTON
Halliburton's Subsidiaries
143 total subsidiaries, 36 incorporated in the United States
Avalon Financial Services, Ltd., Cayman Islands
Baroid Algeria de Service aux Puits SpA, Algeria
Baroid Corporation, United Kingdom
Baroid de Venezuela, S.A. Venezuela
Baroid GmbH Germany
Baroid International Inc. United States
Baroid International Trading, LLC United States
Baroid Limited United Kingdom
Baroid Nigeria, Inc. United States
Baroid of Nigeria Limited Nigeria
Beheersmaatschappij van Aandelen in Textielverwerkende Ondernemingen "Betex"
B.V." Netherlands
BITC (US) LLC United States
BITC Holdings (US) LLC United States
BPM Minerals, LLC United States
Breswater Marine Contracting B.V. Netherlands
Brown & Root Cayman Holdings, Inc. Cayman Islands
Brown & Root Construction Pty Ltd Australia
Brown & Root Projects Pty Ltd Australia
Cebar Sdn. Bhd. Brunei Darussalam
Combisa, S. de R.L. de C.V. Mexico
Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral S. de R.L. de C. V. Mexico
Devonport Management Limited United Kingdom
Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited United Kingdom
DII Industries, LLC United States
Dresser Kellogg Energy Services (Nigeria) Ltd. Nigeria
Dresser Kellogg Energy Services Inc. United States
Georgetown Finance Ltd Caymans Islands
Granherne International (Holdings) Ltd United Kingdom
Granherne Limited United Kingdom
GVA Consultants Aktiebolag Sweden
Halliburton Acquisitions Limited United Kingdom
Halliburton Affiliates, LLC United States
Halliburton Argentina S.A. Argentina
Halliburton AS Norway
Halliburton Australia Pty. Ltd. Australia
Halliburton B.V. Netherlands
Halliburton C.I.C.S. Inc. Cayman Islands
Halliburton Canada Holdings, Inc. United States
Halliburton Company United States
Halliburton Company Germany G.m.b.H. Germany
Halliburton Consolidated Pty Ltd Australia
Halliburton de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. Mexico
Halliburton Denmark A/S Denmark
Halliburton Energy Development (North Sea), Inc. United States
Halliburton Energy Services (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia
Halliburton Energy Services Nigeria Limited Nigeria
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. United States
Halliburton EPC-22 Holdings, S. de R.L. de C.V. Mexico
Halliburton Equipment Company S.A.E. Egypt
Halliburton Far East Pte Ltd Singapore
Halliburton Global, Ltd. Cayman Islands
Halliburton Group (Barbados) SRL Barbados
Halliburton Group Canada (Partnership) Canada
Halliburton Group Canada Inc. Canada
Halliburton Group Holdings (1) Company Canada
Halliburton Holding Germany GmbH Germany
Halliburton Holdings (No. 2) Limited United Kingdom
Halliburton Holdings (No. 3) Limited United Kingdom
Halliburton Holdings 2002 B.V. Netherlands
Halliburton I Cayman, Ltd. Cayman Islands
Halliburton Industries AG Liechtenstein
Halliburton Interim, Inc. United States
Halliburton International, Inc. United States
Halliburton Italiana S.p.A. Italy
Halliburton Latin America S.A. Panama
Halliburton Limited United Kingdom
Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited United Kingdom
Halliburton Netherlands Operations B.V. Netherlands
Halliburton Norway Holdings C.V. Netherlands
Halliburton Operations Nigeria Limited Nigeria
Halliburton Overseas Limited Cayman Islands
Halliburton Products & Services Limited Cayman Islands
Halliburton Produtos Ltda. Brazil
Halliburton Sakhalin Limited Cyprus
Halliburton S.A.S. France
Halliburton Servicos Ltda. Brazil
Halliburton Trinidad Limited Trinidad and Tobago
Halliburton West Africa Ltd. Cayman Islands
Halliburton Worldwide Limited Cayman Islands
HBR Energy, Inc. United States
HBR NL Holdings, LLC United States
HED (Indonesia), Inc. United States
HES Corporation United States
HES Holding, Inc. United States
HES Indonesia Holdings, Inc. United States
HES Oilfield Operations (Nigeria), Inc. United States
Howard Humphreys & Partners Limited United Kingdom
Howard Humphreys Group Limited United Kingdom
KBR Australia Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Group Holdings, LLC United States
KBR Holdings Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Indonesia Holdings, Inc. United States
KBR Overseas, Inc. United States
KBR Production Services Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Technical Services, Inc. United States
KBR Water Services Pty Ltd Australia
Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company Canada
Kellogg Brown & Root (Services) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Algeria Inc. United States
Kellogg Brown & Root Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Singapore
Kellogg Brown & Root DH Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Holding B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc. (A Delaware Corporation) United States
Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc. (A Panamanian Corporation) Panama
Kellogg Brown & Root Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Netherlands B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Offshore Contractors 2 B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Projects Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd Australia
Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. United States
Kellogg Overseas Corporation United States
Kinhill Holdings Pty Ltd Australia
Kinhill Pacific Pty Ltd Australia
Landmark EAME Limited United Kingdom
Landmark Graphics AS Norway
Landmark Graphics Corporation United States
Laurel Financial Services B.V. Netherlands
M. W. Kellogg Constructors Inc. United States
M. W. Kellogg Limited United Kingdom
Mashhor Well Services Sdn Bhd Brunei Darussalam
Mid-Valley, Inc. United States
North Sea Assets Limited United Kingdom
Oilfield Services Receivable Corporation United States
P.T. Brown & Root Indonesia Indonesia
Personal Para Soluciones Optimas, S de RL de CV Mexico
PetroData AS Norway
Petroleum Engineering Services Norge AS Norway
PT Baroid Indonesia Indonesia
PT Halliburton Indonesia Indonesia
PT Halliburton Logging Services Indonesia Indonesia
Rockwater Holdings Limited United Kingdom
Rockwater Limited United Kingdom
Security DBS N.V. Belgium
Servicios Halliburton De Venezuela, S.A. Venezuela
Servicios Profesionales Petroleros, S. de R.L. de C.V. Mexico
Sigma 3 (North Sea) Limited United Kingdom
Sperry-Sun Saudi Arabia Ltd. Saudi Arabia
SubSahara Serivces Inc United States
WLTD Limited United Kingdom
WLTD, Inc. United States
>
>Brown and Root is not a valid corporation name.
By itself, not. But there are at least three subsidiaries using that name
(Construction Pty, Ltd., Projects Pty, Ltd., Cayman Holdings, Inc.). Two
incorporated in Australia and the third in the Cayman Islands.
>
>http://www.kbr.com/corporate/corporate_governance/corporate_governance_guidelines/index.aspx
>
>The methods of communication with the Board include mail (Board of
>Directors c/o Director of Business Conduct, KBR, Inc., P.O. Box 3406,
>Houston, Texas
>
>Your information on BRS is old, business units are not incorporated.
>
>http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1999/brsnws_042199.jsp
>
>1999 Press Releases
>
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 21, 1999
>
>Halliburton's Brown & Root Services Provides Logistics Services to
>Support U.S. Forces in Albania
>
>DALLAS, Texas - Brown & Root Services (BRS), a _business unit_ of
>Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL), is providing logistics support services
>to U.S. Army soldiers being deployed for operations in Albania.
>Brown & Root Services, one of America's top federal contractors, was
>selected by the United States Army as the "Public Works Contractor of
>the Year" for its work at Fort Benning, Georgia.
>
>and thus has been able to do business with
>> countries under US sanctions, such as Iran. This action has the Department of
>> Justice investigating Halliburton. But hasn't been enough to open the bidding to
>> other capable firms.
>
>Please identify the firms with recent field experience in the areas of
>military logistical support.
Depends on what kind of logistics. Construction and infrastructure, where
Halliburton received the no bid? Bechtel, for example? There are countless
others, but I wouldn't want to steal your Google thunder. Bechtel is also
operates under a American corporate umbrella.
>
>> Oh yeah, one other thing. There is one sentence in your posted article below
>> that is probably the sole reason for incorporating in Delaware. That is 'There
>> is no Delaware corporate income tax for corporations that are formed in
>> Delaware so long as they do not transact business in Delaware.' The cost of
>> incorporation and annual franchise tax is indeed low, but inconsequential for a
>> large multi-national. And Delaware is so small, it is relatively easy NOT to do
>> business there.
>
>Thank you for illuminating the obvious.
Obviously you needed it. You are welcome.
>Nevada as well offers tax advantages.
>
>States which do so offer incentives to corporations to form there.
>
>This is SOP.
Look at how many of the Fortune 500 are Delaware based and get back to me, ok?
Nevada isn't even in the same league. Unless you are talking marriage licenses,
which comprise some 10% of the state income.
--
Corky K
>Not exactly true. There are 25 subsidiaries called either KBR or Kellog, Brown
>and Root that serve different functions in different lands. There are also three
>different subsidiaries called Brown and Root(Construction Pty, Ltd., Projects
>Pty, Ltd., Cayman Holdings, Inc.). Two incorporated in Australia and the third
>in the Cayman Islands.
Corrected the error above. 25 not 143. There are 143 total subsidiaries.
autorun
Yet there is only one KBR Corporation.
SPEs and business entities aside.
And THEY are NOT a Cayman Is, based corporation.
We can bat this around as long as it takes.
>> http://www.kbr.com/corporate/OfficeLocationsList.aspx
>>
>> Locations
>> Corporate Office
>> 601 Jefferson Avenue
>> Houston, TX 77002
>> Phone: 713.753.2000
>>
>>
>> 03/02/07 8-K :
>>
>> KBR is incorporated in Delaware, which remains INSIDE the country.
>
> Absolutely wrong.
I'm sorry but the SEC database says otherwise.
KBR IS a Delaware corporation.
> There are numerous branches of KBR, incorporated in various
> countries. As a matter of fact, of the 143 subsidiaries of Halliburton, only 36
> are incorporated in the US. There are 25 KBR (and Kellog, Brown & Root)
> subsidiaries alone, only seven of which are US corporations. They have been
> scrutinized by the US government for using the Panamanian KBR to do business in
> Iran. There is, however, one branch of KBR that is incorporated in Delaware. So
> I guess you are 1/143 correct.
That "one branch" is the parent company, so I'm wholly correct.
Just as Ford is incorporated in America yet they have other entities
producing cars in other nations which they have acquired and sold.
All subsidiaries, and all subsets of the main corporation, and American
incorporated entity.
>> Brown and Root is not a valid corporation name.
>
> By itself, not.
Thank you.
> But there are at least three subsidiaries using that name
> (Construction Pty, Ltd., Projects Pty, Ltd., Cayman Holdings, Inc.). Two
> incorporated in Australia and the third in the Cayman Islands.
Flotsam minutiae, they are merely business entities of the main
corporation, this is very common in multinational US corporations.
Bechtel is one.
And they have received other Iraq contracts.
Name some others.
Dyncorp comes to mind, but the mention would bring more Bush family bashing.
The field was thin, appropriate choices were made.
>>> Oh yeah, one other thing. There is one sentence in your posted article below
>>> that is probably the sole reason for incorporating in Delaware. That is 'There
>>> is no Delaware corporate income tax for corporations that are formed in
>>> Delaware so long as they do not transact business in Delaware.' The cost of
>>> incorporation and annual franchise tax is indeed low, but inconsequential for a
>>> large multi-national. And Delaware is so small, it is relatively easy NOT to do
>>> business there.
>> Thank you for illuminating the obvious.
>
> Obviously you needed it. You are welcome.
Obviously I did not, hence the statement.
>> Nevada as well offers tax advantages.
>>
>> States which do so offer incentives to corporations to form there.
>>
>> This is SOP.
>
> Look at how many of the Fortune 500 are Delaware based and get back to me, ok?
60%.
But Nevada gets the next tier and the mom and pops.
http://www.incorpservices.com/where-to-incorporate.aspx
Nevada, Delaware and Wyoming are all typically referred to as “corporate
havens”, but there are significant differences between them.
INCORPORATION IN NEVADA:
We generally recommend Nevada as the #1 incorporation state, and it’s
not just because our national headquarters is located here. Nevada law
protects directors and officers from personal liability for acts
committed on behalf of the corporation or by the corporation. Because
jurisdiction for the corporation is in the state in which it is
incorporated, this new law makes Nevada the preferred state in which to
incorporate. Nevada has the most favorable tested corporate laws in the
United States. It has the highest degree of privacy, and Nevada is the
only state in the U.S. that does not share information with the Internal
Revenue Service, not to mention no state taxes! Take a look at the
following list and see why people are flocking to Nevada to incorporate:
No Corporate Income Tax
No Taxes on Corporate Shares
No Franchise Tax or Gift Tax
No Business and Occupation Tax
No Stock Transfer Tax
No State Personal Income Tax
No I.R.S. Information Sharing Agreement
Minimal Reporting and Disclosure Requirements
Stockholders are not a matter of Public Record
Law requires only one director (you can have a corporation with only
one person involved)
Directors can change bylaws
No minimum capital is required
Only officers, directors, and resident agents are disclosed
In Nevada, you do not have to reveal the stockholders of a corporation.
The only thing revealed is the identity of the officers. If you have
nominee officers for your corporation, your name is not revealed. You,
therefore, have privacy. No one knows who owns your corporation. If done
properly, this can be a very valuable strategy for protecting assets.
> Nevada isn't even in the same league. Unless you are talking marriage licenses,
> which comprise some 10% of the state income.
Nevada sports unique advantages suited to smaller businesses:
http://econdev.sierrapacific.com/sppc/news/releases/2006/020206state.htm
More than 82,000 companies incorporated in Nevada last year, which is a
15 percent increase from 2004 and keeps the state in the top 10
nationwide for incorporations, a deputy secretary said Wednesday.
"Delaware protects every single stock holder of a corporation formed in
the state," he said. "Nevada only protects the officers. We have no
requirements for stating who your stock holders are."
He said in Nevada, one person can be all of the company's officers,
which is attractive to smaller businesses.
autorun
> Corrected the error above. 25 not 143. There are 143 total subsidiaries.
>
>>> http://www.kbr.com/corporate/OfficeLocationsList.aspx
>>>
>>> Locations
>>> Corporate Office
>>> 601 Jefferson Avenue
>>> Houston, TX 77002
>>> Phone: 713.753.2000
>>>
>>>
>>> 03/02/07 8-K :
>>>
>>> KBR is incorporated in Delaware, which remains INSIDE the country.
Subsidiaries of KBR a Delaware incoporated multinational.
NOT a Cayman Islands incorporation, as I have stated for the final time.
Ermine Todd III
What is at question is why the contract was no-bid and then on top of that
was
cost-plus. Since Bush, et.al., had been preparing to invade since his first
day in office (at least) the excuse "... that it had to be done right then"
doesn't cut it. Why weren't war-profiteering commissions set up by the GOP
in Congress? Why was Halliburton the only company even considered? Why
weren't the contracts shopped out to so that others could put together bids?
The reality is that Bush, et.al., viewed these as another way to line their
(and their supporters') pockets.
>
> You have failed to establish any competing firms with field experience.
Again, irrelevant - but since you seem unable to debate logically, I'll give
you one - the US Government! Instead of paying massively inflated prices
for substandard and criminal (non)work, the money could have gone to direct
funding of governmental agencies to provide the services. Not saying that
this was the best answer - but it would have worked (at least without
Brownie in charge).
> In situations of that nature a no-bid contract is de rigeur.
No, it's not. How do you KNOW there isn't anyone else that could put
together a bid unless you put it out for bid?
> Thank you for establishing your inability to address the topic in a
> factual manner.
Well gee golly, really you are a nice little apologist for them, aren't you!
Given the fact that Halliburton subcontracts most of their work (often to
subsidiaries owned significantly by various officers of Halliburton -
including Cheney) out to others, the conclusion is obvious that there was no
valid necessity for issuing any contract w/o bid to Halliburton. Any number
of other companies could have handled the deal given a fair chance to bid.
autorun
Cost plus bids are quite common in many situations.
Where little is known of the outright scope and duration and even the
very nature of specialized services, cost plus allows the contractor to
provide metered billing as opposed to guess-timating a higher end bid.
Be glad the government did not offer a chance to allow an estimate to be
made.
That would truly have been a give-away.
> Since Bush, et.al., had been preparing to invade since his
> first
> day in office (at least) the excuse "... that it had to be done right then"
> doesn't cut it. Why weren't war-profiteering commissions set up by the GOP
> in Congress? Why was Halliburton the only company even considered? Why
> weren't the contracts shopped out to so that others could put together
> bids?
> The reality is that Bush, et.al., viewed these as another way to line their
> (and their supporters') pockets.
I trust you've leveled all the charges now and will refrain from further
soap-boxing.
If you wish to know the administrations thinking I suggest you engage in
some of your own research by taking a look at past press conferences and
speeches. I'll not act as proxy to your pusilinamous attacks.
>>
>> You have failed to establish any competing firms with field experience.
>
> Again, irrelevant -
Again an utter lie.
You are unable to make your case.
> but since you seem unable to debate logically, I'll
> give you one - the US Government! Instead of paying massively inflated
> prices for substandard and criminal (non)work, the money could have gone
> to direct funding of governmental agencies to provide the services. Not
> saying that this was the best answer - but it would have worked (at
> least without Brownie in charge).
And the answer is that the services were more recently and better
rendered by the contractors chosen.
Additionally the US government had already tied up its resource base in
more needed areas and missions.
>> In situations of that nature a no-bid contract is de rigeur.
>
> No, it's not.
Yes, really it is.
> How do you KNOW there isn't anyone else that could put
> together a bid unless you put it out for bid?
Simple, you are aware of the firms who provide said services and what
their abilities are.
One doesn't want a war zone-inexperienced Wackenhut or Araserv tendering
some lowball bid and then failing to deliver crucial mission support.
How is it you are so slow of wit in these matters?
>> Thank you for establishing your inability to address the topic in a
>> factual manner.
>
> Well gee golly, really you are a nice little apologist for them, aren't
> you!
I see not a thing to apologize for, nor will I. They have their debits
and credits, as do most large firms.
> Given the fact that Halliburton subcontracts most of their work
> (often to subsidiaries owned significantly by various officers of
> Halliburton - including Cheney) out to others, the conclusion is obvious
> that there was no valid necessity for issuing any contract w/o bid to
> Halliburton. Any number of other companies could have handled the deal
> given a fair chance to bid.
And yet you seem starkly UNABLE to NAME them!
Case closed, you may flail at your own liesure, I'm done with you.
Corky K
Nope, sorry. Many, many corporations, falling under the KBR name, which falls
under the Halliburton über umbrella. Each entity is incorporated itself. The
under umbrella of KBR IS indeed incorporated in Delaware. Does this make their
action in Iran illegal?
>SPEs and business entities aside.
Why? Each is its own operating entity and incorporated where it makes business
sense. It is ludicrous to discount this point.
>And THEY are NOT a Cayman Is, based corporation.
Kellog, Brown and Root Cayman Holdings is most definitely incorporated in Cayman
Islands. This is a non debateable point, Spammy. KBR arranged their work through
this subsidiary to try and skate the wrath of the US government, a very dubious
action indeed.
>We can bat this around as long as it takes.
Probably until you start to understand corporate law. I won't hold my breath.
>>> http://www.kbr.com/corporate/OfficeLocationsList.aspx
>>>
>>> Locations
>>> Corporate Office
>>> 601 Jefferson Avenue
>>> Houston, TX 77002
>>> Phone: 713.753.2000
>>>
>>>
>>> 03/02/07 8-K :
>>>
>>> KBR is incorporated in Delaware, which remains INSIDE the country.
>>
>> Absolutely wrong.
>
>I'm sorry but the SEC database says otherwise.
Does your American SEC database show companies registered in other lands? I
listed all of the KBR subsidiaries (BTW, all of the KBR subsidiaries are a
subsidiary of Halliburton). Each is incorporated in a different place. It is not
an arguable point. And, they were under scrutiny for using a subsidiary
incorporated off shore to do business with a company that was under US
sanctions, an illegal action if your version is true. So which is it?
From a cash total perspective, yes. But each is responsible for entirely
separate projects and answers. The only REAL connection in a multi-national of
that size is strategic planning. The parent company, Halliburton, has little to
do with the day-to-day operations. Planning business in Iran would potentially
fall under the strategic (long term) control, meaning that Halliburton did
something knowingly illegal.
Yes, but they were shut out of the no-bid gift to Halliburton. So were all of
the others, which include companies from other countries. Your statement above
that Bechtel is one firm who has the resources is an admission of this.
>Name some others.
>
>Dyncorp comes to mind, but the mention would bring more Bush family bashing.
>
>The field was thin, appropriate choices were made.
>
>>>> Oh yeah, one other thing. There is one sentence in your posted article below
>>>> that is probably the sole reason for incorporating in Delaware. That is 'There
>>>> is no Delaware corporate income tax for corporations that are formed in
>>>> Delaware so long as they do not transact business in Delaware.' The cost of
>>>> incorporation and annual franchise tax is indeed low, but inconsequential for a
>>>> large multi-national. And Delaware is so small, it is relatively easy NOT to do
>>>> business there.
>>> Thank you for illuminating the obvious.
>>
>> Obviously you needed it. You are welcome.
>
>Obviously I did not, hence the statement.
>
>>> Nevada as well offers tax advantages.
>>>
>>> States which do so offer incentives to corporations to form there.
>>>
>>> This is SOP.
>>
>> Look at how many of the Fortune 500 are Delaware based and get back to me, ok?
>
>60%.
Probably all with a mailing address at an attorney's office, the same as I had
set up. My annual franchise tax was $50.00.
>But Nevada gets the next tier and the mom and pops.
As I said, in the bush league when you compare it to Delaware. Thanks for
confirming this.
--
Curt
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > Doesn't bother me a bit, myself. I wonder what Soros thinks now that he
> > owns 2% of it.
>
> He may have known beforehand, thus prompting his investment. These
> things don't just suddenly happen.
>
Soros is smarter than to engage in actual insider trading.
Curt
Curt
"autorun" <scr...@post.zg> wrote in message
news:XAlJh.72436$8x2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
> Halliburton Isn't Abandoning U.S. For Dubai, Analyst Argues
>
> Pat Sullivan / AP
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Mark Urness, head of Energy Research at Calyon Securities, told “Street
> Signs” that people are overlooking a basic point about Halliburton and
> its much-debated Dubai strategy: The company will maintain its Houston
> headquarters and is opening an office in Dubai to better serve the
> Middle East.
And which office will collect the huge, no-bid contract paychecks that the
US is lavishing on Halliburton? The office in the US, which I would presume
would pay taxes on those exorbitant gifts from the American taxpayer? Or the
one in Dubai which presumably won't?
Curt
Curt
"autorun" <scr...@post.zg> wrote in message
All things that should be being done by the army, not by mercenaries.
Curt
Lobby Dosser
autorun
Your need to repeatedly spin this discussion off point renders
continuing any communication with you pointless.
Halliburton is incorporated in Delaware, not DUBAI - period.
KBR is incorporated in Delaware, not the CAYMAN IS. - period.
You may spit and fume about their contracts, business units, Cheney, the
war, whether Delaware or Nevada have more incorporations, really just
whatever warms the gloomy cockles of your obviously rancid heart - but
you will do so without my offering you any further venue or
participatory soap box.
In due time maybe you'll lance all the anger out, though I'd warrant
that an unlikely carbuncle to purge at best.
autorun
Smart enough to bring down the British pound in fact.
autorun
They seem to have had more pressing issues to allocate their resources
to, like actually FIGHTING the enemy.
Novel concept isn't it?
autorun
Or at least punished to any pain-causing degree.
autorun
> "autorun" <scr...@post.zg> wrote in message
> news:XAlJh.72436$8x2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
>> Halliburton Isn't Abandoning U.S. For Dubai, Analyst Argues
>>
>> Pat Sullivan / AP
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> Mark Urness, head of Energy Research at Calyon Securities, told “Street
>> Signs” that people are overlooking a basic point about Halliburton and
>> its much-debated Dubai strategy: The company will maintain its Houston
>> headquarters and is opening an office in Dubai to better serve the
>> Middle East.
>
> And which office will collect the huge, no-bid contract paychecks that the
> US is lavishing on Halliburton?
Houston, that's where the contracts were executed and signed.
Lobby Dosser
Quite.
Bill Shatzer
> Curt wrote:
-snip-
>> And which office will collect the huge, no-bid contract paychecks that
>> the
>> US is lavishing on Halliburton?
> Houston, that's where the contracts were executed and signed.
I don't know of any contract which doesn't provide that payment will be
made where the payee designates.
Iffen they wanna be paid in Dubai, all it takes is a certified letter
designating an address in Dubai as the place of payment.
Where the contracts were signed is hardly controlling.
Peace and justice,
Corky K
Each business unit is separately incorporated, most offshore. That is a fact you
have refused to admit, and the primary reason why you are wrong. Halliburton has
been very astute in using the correct business unit to skate laws. Also an
undeniable fact, otherwise they wouldn't be under scrutiny from our government.
It doesn't matter at all that Halliburton (and KBR) are Delaware corporations if
their elsewhere incorporated business units are acting unethically now does it?
>
>You may spit and fume about their contracts, business units, Cheney, the
>war, whether Delaware or Nevada have more incorporations, really just
>whatever warms the gloomy cockles of your obviously rancid heart - but
>you will do so without my offering you any further venue or
>participatory soap box.
Really? I'll believe that when I see it. Spammy NOT getting the last word?
Unheard of in Usenet. LOL.
>In due time maybe you'll lance all the anger out, though I'd warrant
>that an unlikely carbuncle to purge at best.
No anger here, just facts that you refuse to admit are reality. Hey Spammy, when
you come to an argument, bring your 'A' game, ok? What you gave this time was
pretty weak.
autorun
> autorun wrote:
>
>> Curt wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>>> And which office will collect the huge, no-bid contract paychecks
>>> that the
>>> US is lavishing on Halliburton?
>
>> Houston, that's where the contracts were executed and signed.
>
> I don't know of any contract which doesn't provide that payment will be
> made where the payee designates.
Are you a corporate contract attorney?
> Iffen they wanna be paid in Dubai, all it takes is a certified letter
> designating an address in Dubai as the place of payment.
Prove this.
> Where the contracts were signed is hardly controlling.
Prove this.
autorun
Those were the indictments leveled, they remain false, period.
>> In due time maybe you'll lance all the anger out, though I'd warrant
>> that an unlikely carbuncle to purge at best.
>
> No anger here, just facts that you refuse to admit are reality.
Halliburton is incorporated in Delaware, not DUBAI - period.
KBR is incorporated in Delaware, not the CAYMAN IS. - period.
Those were the indictments leveled, they remain false, period.
The remainder of your diversionary froth is dismissed.
Bill Shatzer
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> autorun wrote:
>>> Curt wrote:
>> -snip-
>>>> And which office will collect the huge, no-bid contract paychecks
>>>> that the
>>>> US is lavishing on Halliburton?
>>> Houston, that's where the contracts were executed and signed.
>> I don't know of any contract which doesn't provide that payment will
>> be made where the payee designates.
> Are you a corporate contract attorney?
I was.
>> Iffen they wanna be paid in Dubai, all it takes is a certified letter
>> designating an address in Dubai as the place of payment.
> Prove this.
Pretty standard contract boiler plate.
>> Where the contracts were signed is hardly controlling.
> Prove this.
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods:
"Article 57
(1) If the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other particular
place, he must pay it to the seller:
(a) at the seller's place of business; or
(b) if the payment is to be made against the handing over of the goods
or of documents, at the place where the handing over takes place.
(2) The seller must bear any increase in the expenses incidental to
payment which is caused by a change in his place of business subsequent
to the conclusion of the contract."
Peace and justice,
autorun
> autorun wrote:
>
>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>> autorun wrote:
>
>>>> Curt wrote:
>
>>> -snip-
>
>>>>> And which office will collect the huge, no-bid contract paychecks
>>>>> that the
>>>>> US is lavishing on Halliburton?
>
>>>> Houston, that's where the contracts were executed and signed.
>
>>> I don't know of any contract which doesn't provide that payment will
>>> be made where the payee designates.
>
>> Are you a corporate contract attorney?
>
> I was.
Fair enough.
>>> Iffen they wanna be paid in Dubai, all it takes is a certified letter
>>> designating an address in Dubai as the place of payment.
>
>> Prove this.
>
> Pretty standard contract boiler plate.
That is not proof.
>>> Where the contracts were signed is hardly controlling.
>
>> Prove this.
>
> Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods:
>
> "Article 57
Of what?
I expect verifiable company specific proof, not some dangling participle.
Lobby Dosser
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> autorun wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>> autorun wrote:
>>
>>>>> Curt wrote:
>>
>>>> -snip-
>>
>>>>>> And which office will collect the huge, no-bid contract paychecks
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> US is lavishing on Halliburton?
>>
>>>>> Houston, that's where the contracts were executed and signed.
>>
>>>> I don't know of any contract which doesn't provide that payment will
>>>> be made where the payee designates.
>>
>>> Are you a corporate contract attorney?
>>
>> I was.
>
> Fair enough.
Come on, Sammy! We all Know what he was.
autorun
I'm sorry, is he actually misrepresenting his resume?
That would be unfortunate.
Perhaps we might ask him where and when he practiced and if he's listed
in the state bar.
In the interim we may await his _specific_ evidentiary proof regarding
contracts signed by these firms.
Corky K
>Bill Shatzer wrote:
Dance, Spammy, dance. Bill just quoted directly from the Convention on Contracts
for the International Sale of Goods. Here's the link for Google impaired:
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/treaty.html Article 57 spells it out
clearly. Time for your meds again.
Corky K
>Bill Shatzer wrote:
Dance, Spammy, dance. Bill just quoted directly from the Convention on Contracts
Corky K
>Bill Shatzer wrote:
Bill is correct and Spammy gets to dance again! What is typical with contracts
is that they are valid under the laws of the country or state in which they are
drafted. The Method of Payment section of the contract spells out in detail how
the contract will moentarily be fulfilled. Payment can be designated in any
currency, in any land, at any time, as long as the two parties agree to the
terms. Eg. An international concert tour. The agent will normally have a
contract (perhaps a standard union contract) for performance. The laws of that
contract fall under the state in which the agent is doing business (normally).
The payment, however, comes to the artist in the land where they are doing the
performance. It is typical for American artists to request payment in dollars
when touring abroad, thus the method of payment, place of payment and currency
are all spelled out in the contract. Now dance, Spammy!
Corky K
I KNEW you couldn't let it alone, Spammy. You are like a trained dog. Dance,
Spammy dance! Here is the total incorporation of Halliburton and all of their
subsidiaries again, just to rub it in your face that you are WRONG! Dance REAL
good now Spammy. We're all watchin'.
ABOUT HALLIBURTON
--
Corky K
>Bill Shatzer wrote:
Bill is correct and Spammy gets to dance again! What is typical with contracts
is that they are valid under the laws of the country or state in which they are
drafted. The Method of Payment section of the contract spells out in detail how
the contract will moentarily be fulfilled. Payment can be designated in any
currency, in any land, at any time, as long as the two parties agree to the
terms. Eg. An international concert tour. The agent will normally have a
contract (perhaps a standard union contract) for performance. The laws of that
contract fall under the state in which the agent is doing business (normally).
The payment, however, comes to the artist in the land where they are doing the
performance. It is typical for American artists to request payment in dollars
when touring abroad, thus the method of payment, place of payment and currency
are all spelled out in the contract. Now dance, Spammy!
--
Corky K
I KNEW you couldn't let it alone, Spammy. You are like a trained dog. Dance,
Spammy dance! Here is the total incorporation of Halliburton and all of their
subsidiaries again, just to rub it in your face that you are WRONG! Dance REAL
good now Spammy. We're all watchin'.
ABOUT HALLIBURTON
--
Curt
"autorun" <scr...@post.zg> wrote in message
Seems like the mercenaries are getting to do some fighting, too.
No, the army should be handling its own operations. Halliburton, KBR, etc
should not be in Iraq at all, and no private company should have a standing
mercenary army.
Curt
autorun
A reasonable premise as there are private contractors to be protected.
> No, the army should be handling its own operations.
Then you may need a far larger one.
> Halliburton, KBR, etc
> should not be in Iraq at all,
Oh?
So the wells should remain unrepaired, the production offline?
> and no private company should have a standing
> mercenary army.
Have you been psychologically damaged by watching "Swamp Thing" one too
many times?
Curt
"autorun" <scr...@post.zg> wrote in message
> Curt wrote:
> >>>> Services performed by Halliburton, through its Brown and Root
> >>>> subsidiary, include building and managing military bases, logistical
> >>>> support for the 1,200 intelligence officers hunting Iraqi weapons of
> >>>> mass destruction, delivering mail and producing millions of hot
meals.
> >>> All things that should be being done by the army, not by mercenaries.
> >>>
> >> They seem to have had more pressing issues to allocate their resources
> >> to, like actually FIGHTING the enemy.
> >>
> >> Novel concept isn't it?
> >
> > Seems like the mercenaries are getting to do some fighting, too.
>
> A reasonable premise as there are private contractors to be protected.
The army should have pacified the place before the vendors moved in. If the
vendors have to use mercenaries to protect their folks, that means there's a
problem with how we "won" the war, doesn't it?
>
> > No, the army should be handling its own operations.
>
> Then you may need a far larger one.
True, true. Or maybe we could just not fight vanity wars.
>
> > Halliburton, KBR, etc
> > should not be in Iraq at all,
>
> Oh?
>
> So the wells should remain unrepaired, the production offline?
Not till the war's won, certainly. And why aren't the Iraqis doing that
themselves, anyway? Don't they need jobs?
>
> > and no private company should have a standing
> > mercenary army.
>
> Have you been psychologically damaged by watching "Swamp Thing" one too
> many times?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Swamp what?
Curt