Subject:
|
Re: If I were a conspiracy nut...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:53:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
167 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
>
> In which, surprise surprise, Haliburton--Cheneys old company, gets the first
> contract...
Are there any other possible explanations? Or is patronage for certain the
only reason this contract was awarded?
Patronage sucks, I always hate to see it.
But how many US companies are there (please excuse me if I leave out French,
German, Chinese and Russian ones for the moment, ok? We've had enough help
from Russian companies for a bit.) capable of the entire scope of this work?
If there are only 3 or 4 (and I don't know if that's true, I haven't done
the research... perhaps you could since you seem to be making the
accusation) or only 1 or 2, is this an unexpected outcome?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: If I were a conspiracy nut...
|
| (...) Please be reasonable and THINK just for one moment. What are your standards for proof? In a court of law we would look at the accused and wonder if he had means, motive, and opportunity based upon evidence. We look at a cocaine dealer and (...) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
