Rog Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Halliburton are not making excessive profits from being involved in oil and a quick look at their share price as well as their return on capital employed (as far as any of the big boys figures can be got to) show them in line with the rest. Once again the propaganda machine has made this a cause celebre due to Dick Cheney being a principle shareholder in the company until he STOOD DOWN in 2000 prior to running for office. Today Halliburton stock is actually far LESS popular as an investment than other similar companies. Take the price-to-earnings ratio, Halliburton's share price is 20.5 times earnings, whereas other similar companies are running at 26.5 times. (That ratio shows stock price against dividend earning potential) And in any case oil is actually not being shipped cheaply at all. It’s being purchased FROM THE IRAQUI OIL OFFICE at market rate, it’s being shipped at the market rate and it’s hitting the marker at the market price. As regards the SUV’s – don’t forget that there has been an ungodly row in the US over the increase on the price of fuel and that the big vehicles are by no means the popular means of transport. There’s a dam sight more compacts than big machines on the streets. Also that because fuel in the UK is so disgustingly overtaxed we don’t see the same percentage increase in the fuel price as do the Americans who are now seeing a price hike to around $3 per gallon - an increase of around the same as we are seeing on our garage forecourts if we look at the untaxed component of the price that we pay. So no, it’s NOT ‘all about oil’ though taking saddam out had significantly reduced the possibility of him and his followers using oil as a weapon in the future which they most surely would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 ... due to Dick Cheney being a principle shareholder in the company ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the word you are looking for is PRINCIPAL Cheney and PRINCIPLE are not often seen together..... *and if it is not about oil, it certainly is something to do with the price of oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 China! Thanks FFTB! - You spotted that obvious one! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you in politics matty? If you aren't you should be! Totally ignoring inconvenient facts that don't suit your case in favour of a sidetrack onto what you believe to be safer ground is a "must have" talent for any politician. You seem to have it in abundance! It's not a question of BS but rather do you want Low, Medium or High? Well Mr DTCB, I am quite sure Mr Cheney has principles it's just they revolve around - Mr Cheney! - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Reznor Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 rog said: Halliburton are not making excessive profits from being involved in oil and a quick look at their share price as well as their return on capital employed (as far as any of the big boys figures can be got to) show them in line with the rest. Once again the propaganda machine has made this a cause celebre due to Dick Cheney being a principle shareholder in the company until he STOOD DOWN in 2000 prior to running for office. Today Halliburton stock is actually far LESS popular as an investment than other similar companies. Take the price-to-earnings ratio, Halliburton's share price is 20.5 times earnings, whereas other similar companies are running at 26.5 times. (That ratio shows stock price against dividend earning potential) And in any case oil is actually not being shipped cheaply at all. It’s being purchased FROM THE IRAQUI OIL OFFICE at market rate, it’s being shipped at the market rate and it’s hitting the marker at the market price. WTF?? firstly the PE ratio is price divided by earnings, earnings being net income, not "dividend earning potential", I've never heard of that... However, the lower the PE the better the investment, please don't argue with me because I am an investment professional and know exactly what I'm talking about err, have you never heard of Enron and off-balance sheet transactions Haliburton has other businesses, not just oil and has greatly profited fom the Iraq War and Dick Cheney was not the 'principle shareholder'.. he was the god-damn CEO and he got a $20M send off when he left the company and who exaclty runs the Iraqi Oil Office??? haven't you heard Wolfowitz and the other neo-cons saying the oil revenues from Iraq would pay the reconstruction there, well at least that's what they say... some people here are either US Republicans in disguise or just very poorly informed... do I have to remind you off this!!! http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Are you in politics matty? If you aren't you should be! Totally ignoring inconvenient facts that don't suit your case in favour of a sidetrack onto what you believe to be safer ground is a "must have" talent for any politician. You seem to have it in abundance! It's not a question of BS but rather do you want Low, Medium or High? Well Mr DTCB, I am quite sure Mr Cheney has principles it's just they revolve around - Mr Cheney! Nope not in politics - can't stand BS. What "inconvenient facts" have I been ignoring?? The US props up puppet governments for it's own financial gain (this makes it obvious to me and others, their intentions for invading Iraq were not about getting rid of Saddam). The UN sanctions & no fly zone had according to the UN pretty much contained the Iraqi situiation so that they couldn't realistically threaten their neighbours. (I'm more inclined to beleive the UN than the US propaganda machine). We were lied to about the original intentions of going to war with Iraq - if you really beleieve the BS that they had WMD and could deploy them in 45 mins, would you not think they would have used them against the invading troops? (Am I missing something here?) When none of the WMD were found, the tagline became "We are there to liberate the Iraqi people" - if this is the case, then why haven't the US done anything about the previous countries I've mentioned ie Tibet/China and much of Africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Nope not in politics - can't stand BS. What "inconvenient facts" have I been ignoring?? The US props up puppet governments for it's own financial gain (this makes it obvious to me and others, their intentions for invading Iraq were not about getting rid of Saddam). The UN sanctions & no fly zone had according to the UN pretty much contained the Iraqi situiation so that they couldn't realistically threaten their neighbours. (I'm more inclined to beleive the UN than the US propaganda machine). We were lied to about the original intentions of going to war with Iraq - if you really beleieve the BS that they had WMD and could deploy them in 45 mins, would you not think they would have used them against the invading troops? (Am I missing something here?) When none of the WMD were found, the tagline became "We are there to liberate the Iraqi people" - if this is the case, then why haven't the US done anything about the previous countries I've mentioned ie Tibet/China and much of Africa? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you think they would have deployed WMD against allied troops in 45 minutes then yes you really are missing something as it would absolutely guarantee regime change. Surprise surprise something Mr Saddam was not keen on. I can't believe people can be so stupid about this. Here it is: The West needs a stable Middle East to function. Just in case you bleeding heart liberals missed it the first time: The West needs a stable Middle East to function. The fact that Saddam was particularly evil, used WMD against his enemies and his own people just added more justification. He invaded two neighbouring states and rendered the whole region unstable so he had to go. Who cares that no WMD was found? Unrealistic tossers chant it like a mantra against going in when we were going anyway. As if it means anything when in fact it means absolutely nothing. Got that? It means absolutely nothing. PS - Errr China isn't part of the Middle-Eastern oil equation. I just thought you'd like to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 If you think they would have deployed WMD against allied troops in 45 minutes then yes you really are missing something as it would absolutely guarantee regime change. Surprise surprise something Mr Saddam was not keen on. So by that logic Saddam didn't know Iraq was being invaded ??? I can't believe people can be so stupid about this. Here it is: The West needs a stable Middle East to function. I beleive the world needs a stable Middle East to function, - the US invading Iraq must make every -even many moderate Molsem countries think that Bush is out to get them, hell - talk about sticking your hand in a hornets nest. This war has caused much hatred against the west, - caused all of the "terrorism" in Iraq and totally destablised the rest of the Middle East, made the US and the UK even more likely targets of terrorism. The whole bloody planet is now much more unstable because of this war - never mind the Middle East!! The fact that Saddam was particularly evil, used WMD against his enemies and his own people just added more justification. He invaded two neighbouring states and rendered the whole region unstable so he had to go. Who cares that no WMD was found? Unrealistic tossers chant it like a mantra against going in when we were going anyway. As if it means anything when in fact it means absolutely nothing. Got that? It means absolutely nothing. You seem to be saying that it is absolutely fine for your government to lie to you, invade a sovereing nation (that realistically posed no or little threat) and killed thousands of innocent civilians, to get rid of a brutal dictator. PS - Errr China isn't part of the Middle-Eastern oil equation. I just thought you'd like to know that. Err, yes China isn't part of the Mid-East, or oil equation, I was using it as an example of a dictatorship invading neighbouring countries and the US doing nothing about it. Now if Tibet had oil, I'm sure it would be a different story alltogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 If you think they would have deployed WMD against allied troops in 45 minutes then yes you really are missing something as it would absolutely guarantee regime change. Surprise surprise something Mr Saddam was not keen on. So by that logic Saddam didn't know Iraq was being invaded ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No (although I'm not sure why I'm explaining this to an idiot. Normally I won't argue with idiots as they just drag you down to their level and then just beat you with experience) as you know only too well Mr Saddam did know he was being invaded but he also knew that if he used WMD on the allies invading him then unlike the previous time they would go all the way and remove him from power. Got that thicko? You seem to be saying that it is absolutely fine for your government to lie to you, invade a sovereing nation (that realistically posed no or little threat) and killed thousands of innocent civilians, to get rid of a brutal dictator. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where on earth do you get this "absolutely fine for your government to lie to you" rubbish from? One word - Ballacain. By the way, the word is sovereign and Iraq posed an enormous threat as it had WMD and had already invaded two of it's neighbours. Posed little or no threat - so invading two of your neighbours is ok is it? Pathetic, must try harder... PS - Errr China isn't part of the Middle-Eastern oil equation. I just thought you'd like to know that. Err, yes China isn't part of the Mid-East, or oil equation, I was using it as an example of a dictatorship invading neighbouring countries and the US doing nothing about it. Now if Tibet had oil, I'm sure it would be a different story alltogether. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why should the US do anything about it? The West needs a stable Middle East, Tibet and China have nothing whatever to do with it. Sure if you want to try and portray the US as World Policeman ie "If they don't do anything about China or Tibet they are just, well, nasty, or horrid, or something. So invading Iraq has nothing whatever to do with world peace." Or something. Complete and utter crapulence. Still, never mind, one day you'll probably grow up..... - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Fatty Toad Boy Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 No (although I'm not sure why I'm explaining this to an idiot. Normally I won't argue with idiots as they just drag you down to their level and then just beat you with experience) as you know only too well Mr Saddam did know he was being invaded but he also knew that if he used WMD on the allies invading him then unlike the previous time they would go all the way and remove him from power. Got that thicko? That doesn't stand - He didn't use WMD on the allies, they did go all the way and remove him from power. You seem to be saying that it is absolutely fine for your government to lie to you, invade a sovereing nation (that realistically posed no or little threat) and killed thousands of innocent civilians, to get rid of a brutal dictator.Where on earth do you get this "absolutely fine for your government to lie to you" rubbish from? One word - Ballacain. By the way, the word is sovereign and Iraq posed an enormous threat as it had WMD and had already invaded two of it's neighbours. Posed little or no threat - so invading two of your neighbours is ok is it? Pathetic, must try harder... Read what he said - "You seem to be saying..." It did not have WMD (unless you believe Curveball, he spouted rubbish when he drank too much too). It wasn't "an enormous threat" anymore. The West needs a stable Middle East... It's going to get interesting now. Iran, Iraq and Syria will form a Shia Muslim powerbase ("axis of evil"?) through the heart of the Middle East. How will the oil-rich Sunni Muslims react? Syria under pressure from West has left Lebannon where they were peacekeepers, cue civil war. Muslim extremism on the rise (after the "crusades" of the West). Israelis and Palestinians still killing each other. Stable? Not even close. Why should the US do anything about it? The West needs a stable Middle East, Tibet and China have nothing whatever to do with it. Sure if you want to try and portray the US as World Policeman (sic) ie "If they don't do anything about China or Tibet they are just, well, nasty, or horrid, or something. So invading Iraq has nothing whatever to do with world peace." Or something. Complete and utter crapulence. More like World Missionaries. I think Matty is trying pointing out the hypocrisy of the US. China has WMD, it invades its neighbours, it isn't a democracy, it has an appalling human rights record, it threatens stability in the region. All reasons given for invading Iraq. Still, never mind, one day you'll probably grow up..... Why are you so offensive? Been on the pop again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I think Matty is trying pointing out the hypocrisy of the US. China has WMD, it invades its neighbours, it isn't a democracy, it has an appalling human rights record, it threatens stability in the region. All reasons given for invading Iraq. Still, never mind, one day you'll probably grow up..... Why are you so offensive? Been on the pop again? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't see it as hypocrisy, I'm far too pragmatic for that. Rule #1 when starting a war - only start one you think you can win. I would agree with all that is said of China. This morning Amnesty reported that at about 4,000 there had been more recorded executions worldwide in 2004 than at any other time. Of those 3,500 were in China. That statistic speaks for itself. Any country that takes on China starts World War 3. But China now has an absolutely monster navy. It is also rattling it's rockets at Taiwan. If China invades Taiwan then get digging. Mind you, we're in for some fantastic sunsets. I don't drink pop, I drink beer - on a Wednesday and Sunday night although I may watch the Liverpool game down the pub this evening. Edited to add I think Juve will win 2-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 PK just because I don't agree with your points and you seem to have no logic to back them up, there's no need to try and insult my intelligence with cheap personal jibes. That's the lowest of the low! If that's all you can do without giving logical arguments to back up your claims, then I'm wasting my time with you. And by the way, I am "grown up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 It's not my fault you fail to see the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Reznor Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 "I would agree with all that is said of China. This morning Amnesty reported that at about 4,000 there had been more recorded executions worldwide in 2004 than at any other time. Of those 3,500 were in China. That statistic speaks for itself. " true... but when W. was governor of Texas he executed more people than everyone else before him put together... he also spent a whole 15 minutes reviewing their case whereas others had spend hours/days over issues, apparantly he had 'faith' in the courts... but if it's human rights, then it's OK for his buddy's making the bombs to sell as many as they can despite killing 10,000s of people in Iraq, money is more important in the US government than human rights it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 It's not my fault you fail to see the logic. That's because you don't provide any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.