Talk:Halliburton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portal:Business and Economics
 Business and Economics Portal
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Halliburton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Two Errors

One significant error in this article.

As reported by National Public Radio ("All Thing Considered," 3/12/07, Media:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7859069), Halliburton isn't moving its corporate HQ to Dubai. It is opening a headquarters in Dubai, and Halliburton Chairman and CEO David Lesar will office and work from there. However, NPR also reported that the corporate HQ and most corporate operations will remain in Houston.

This story is being incorrectly reported across the media because so few media organizations do original investigation anymore. Once one of them puts out a story, even if factually incorrect, the rest pick it up from the wire services or the internet and repeat it worldwide almost verbatim.

Deep Purple 70.251.247.184 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai move?

Are they moving their headquarters to Dubai? RGDS Alexmcfire


[edit] "Dick" Cheney???

There are several references to "Dick" Cheney, including in the table of contents. I will do a search-and-replace to correct the name to "Richard", but I'm shocked that anybody let this slip in the first place. I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, but sure as hell I'm making a point, idiots!!! 129.98.212.164 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is a joke. The official VP webpage uses both on its front page, and media mentions aren't even close. --zenohockey 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
He is commonly referred to as Dick Cheney, even by Fox News. Calling people idiots has no place on wikipedia. --Ubiq 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted material in wikipedia

Please do not cut and paste copyrighted material into Wikipedia. That can not be allowed for legal reasons. If there is some other website with a particularly good treatment of the subject, you may add an external link to it. -- Infrogmation 20:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that this comment is under Halliburton...? Do you see the irony...? It's a dark one. Khranus:.

How is it ironic? What are you talking about? Gest 12:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1 possibility is that Halliburton uses many offshore companies to avoid tax laws GAO Study

Which is which? The Halliburton page says it is a "KBR subsidiary" and the KBR page says KBR is a "subsidiary of Halliburton". You can't have it both ways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.186.188 (talk • contribs) .

Both articles would appear to correctly identify KBR as a subsidiary of Halliburton. Can you be more specific as to where you see the error in this article? Kuru talk 23:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
On the Halliburton page, it says this of Halliburton "... the KBR subsidiary is a major construction company..." In other words, Halliburton is a subsidiary of KBR. However on the KBR page, it says this of KBR "... a subsidiary of Halliburton,... ". In other words KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.186.188 (talk • contribs) .
The sentence you're quoting begins with "Halliburton operates two major business segments:" and then lists one of them as "the KBR subsidiary is a major construction company". Seems clear to me. Can you suggest an alternate way to word it that would be more informative? Kuru talk 01:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more news

[1] will give you more to write about here. Kingturtle 06:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well this is a well-balanced NPOV article! LOL. --M4-10 04:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

  • er....what you're supposed to do is read the article and take from it what is useful. use your brain ;) Kingturtle 10:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • er ... as of 2006.03.10, it is the equivalent of a Republican campaign news release. Everything is given an excuse, with the main exception being the external links. The article itself, however, is poorly and obscurely written, using Bush campaign propaganda and its news ghost writers as actual sources. The Overview may as well be copy and pasted directly from Halliburton's company & stock info pages.--Halliburton Shill 18:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheney balance sheet

"In 2002, Cheney's total asset wealth was valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million." Says who? The IRS? So what are his debts? - Jerryseinfeld 23:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] the latest

if anyone has time, there is information in this news item [2] which could be of use to this article. Kingturtle 10:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article appears to be a slam piece against Cheney and Halliburton, not a fair presentation of Halliburton. NPOV seems to be definitely violated. Johnwhunt 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to be a little more specific. Your argument is a broad generalization which makes no specific references. I am not going to remove factual information from an entry just because you think it makes them look bad. Stevenwagner 21:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
As of 2006.03.10 & 11, the article is a corporate PR piece. The only exception are the external links that at least link to actual investigative reporting as opposed to ghost written campaign propaganda for Cheney's minions. I can't even make a simple link addition without having it reversed. There is definitely something corrupted in the admin of this article. I'm scared to look at the Wal-Mart article.--Halliburton Shill 19:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes Made

Please note. Johnwhunt 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted passage

This passage was deleted a couple of weeks ago:

  • Influence of the contracts can be seen from company financial reports company posted a second-quarter net loss of $663 million in 2004, revenue rose 38 percent from a year earlier to $5.0 billion. Iraq-related work contributed $1.7 billion in revenue in 2003 and a further $3.8 billion in the first six months of 2004.

Can anyone tell me why? Unless it's specifically inaccurate, this seems to be a very relevant notation. At the very least the fact that they've seen a 38% revenue increase during a merely so-so economic period is significant in and of itself. The fact that government contracts are a factor is also such. If no one has a reason it should be excluded, I think it ought to go back in. Wally 22:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed it, Wally. I'll try to explain why I did.

Inserting quarterly numbers into the article seemed inappropriate because they are quickly dated. And empasizing the impact of one quarter in particular I thought was misleading, particularly since the statement reported revenue. Constuction is so convoluted that revenue in and of itself can be misleading, particularily in an encyclopedia context. Instead, I discussed the fact construction causes fluctuations, showed three years annual profit and loss numbers and current year revenue. The link to the Halliburton website can take the reader who needs to know to their annual reports for indepth discussions. The article states elsewhere the amount of the Iraq conracts and the anticipated profit. Johnwhunt 23:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry about information becoming quickly dated here. There are many people who can update information once it actually becomes dated so it doesnt need to be done preemptively. It would be great if you would bring issues like this to the Discussion page since there is a community process can take place. It would be great to see a comprehensive section detailing Haliburtons revenues and balances. Stevenwagner 21:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Restored Halliburton's net income figures. Corrected the asbestos loss number which had been incorrectly changed. Restored the sentence concerning the nature of international construction. Removed most of the comments inserted about the $108 million cost question, including Waxman and the UN. $108 million is not significant in relation to contract and the UN is scrambling for anything that takes the focus off their handling of Iraqi oil. Johnwhunt 14:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Updated asbestos information for the settlement reached in Jan 2005. --Fbody98 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Added conclusion to SEC investigation. Eliminated two dead links. Johnwhunt 20:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous tipster

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not talking about General Motors or Proctor & Gamble. Halliburton is directly involved in the Iraq War. To remove this information makes Halliburton out to be just another company that incidently has immense political connections that have directly impacted its bottom line. Put it back in. Stop pretending to be neutral Wall Street analyst. ~~172.162.227.133

Try signing your name. Try to remember that Wikipedia isn't a propaganda machine. It's true that Halliburton has shady business practices and high-level connections, but Wikipedia isn't about spin, POV, or anythign not based on solid facts. glocks out 00:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Try not swaying the article to the right. Just because you don't agree with reality, doesn't make this a democrat edit.

You know there is a certain amount of freedom that comes in not signing your name, isn't there? You start to believe you can insult, degrade, and even lose all sight of grammar. Perhaps unsigned comments should just be deleted. I know mine should. Or else I can just sit here, hand down my pants, throwin' feces at what whoevah wanna make it uh democrat edit.

I have a general question: Why are unsigned comments considered so pernicious? Isn't it Wikipedia policy that you do not have to have a registered username in order to be allowed to contribute? And, if someone doesn't have a username, what is accomplished by typing in the 4 tildes? I mean, it seems to me that on any Talk Page where there is some disagreement going on (i.e. every talk page) if someone makes a comment and doesn't "sign" (which I am not sure means (1) that he doesn't have a username, or (2) doesn't type in the 4 tildes, or (3) both), this is condemned by other contributors to the Talk Page. Why is this so? What difference does it make if someone signs or doesn't? Please, someone, answer me; I have been puzzling over this for some time. It seems as if there is an inference that if a contributor doesn't sign, his contribution has some nefarious motive, or he is engaged in vandalism. This is especially puzzling to me, since it is clear that whoever edits these pages has the ability to extract any contributor's IP address, so that no one can "hide" and commit numerous acts of vandalism. In any case, what difference does the lack of a signature have to the point(s) under debate? Also--there is also the possibility that the person simply forgot to type the 4 tildes; this has indeed happened to me once or twice. 66.108.4.183 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

See the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for details. --JerryOrr 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed costs update

Apparantly, the Army intends to reimburse Halliburton for nearly all of the disputed costs for the Iraq contract.[3] I don't have time to add this now, but if anyone is interested in incorporating this update into the article, that link should be helpful. JerryOrr 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction of statement

I removed the following addition to the Halliburton article:

Note: The above statement is not correct. KBR Halliburton never received a no-bid contract. Operation "Restore Iraqi Oil" was invoked under a contract that KBR won in a competitive bid process. The contract is referred to as LOGCAP (Logistical Civilian Augmentation Program) and is managed by the US Army. KBR won the first LOGCAP contract, Dyncorp the second, and KBR the current one, dubbed "LOGCAP III." It's a contingency-based contract that is invoked at the convenience of the Army. Because the contract is a kind of retainer, specific orders are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was) and thus the reason for the confusion.

When the contract was invoked during the Balkans crisis under the administration of President Clinton, there was no controversy and very little scrutiny of the contract. KBR performed under this agreement in the Balkans for over 10 years and still maintains a LOGCAP presence there to this day. It was only after the Second Gulf War that the LOGCAP contract was made a political issue by opponents of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

This is not really an appropriate way to update the article. If you believe a previous statement in the article is incorrect, find a source, update the incorrect section (don't just add a note saying it's incorrect, fix it), and cite it appropriately. --JerryOrr 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet somehow removing all of the information is correct? Didn't you just scold the person who added the above text to go and cite sources rather than say "its not correct"? Removing the new content is appropriate ... how?Yeago 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The content is not NPOV, it is not cited, and thus it is not valid content. As such, I removed it. Since when can someone just come to Wikipedia and throw up two paragraphs of uncited material directly conflicting with existing cited content? No link, no reference, no indication of where it came from? And the use of weasel words does not make up for a lack of sources. Since you've taken the liberty of re-adding this POV, uncited content, I suppose you intend to clean it up and provide citation? If not, I will remove it; a controversial topic such as this does not need more uncited content. --JerryOrr 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
While the tone is POV, I have easily mitigated its POV status simply by rounding off that first charge. Aside from the first part it is simply a list of facts--all easily verifiable.
Sure, I'll poke around it can't be that hard. What I can't fathom is how you can both remove it and then let charges slip through your fingers that you could use a listen to. Oh but isn't it always like that? People barking the very things they ought to stop and listen to.
So, Jerry, may I say that wholesale removal is not the way to update content--even if that content has slight' POV issues? The correct way, Jerry, is to find a source, update the incorrect section (don't just delete it on because of slight issues) and cite it appropriately.Yeago 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"While the tone is POV, I have easily mitigated its POV status simply by rounding off that first charge" - perhaps you should read the link I provided on weasel words. Simply changing it to "Some contend, however" without providing any source does not make it NPOV; those are weasel words, and are frowned upon by Wikipedia.
My fix--call it what you like--mitigates the POV claim. Nobody was suggesting the material continue to be bereft of sources. Obviously it shouldn't remain without sources. But plenty of things on WP need sources and we don't take them out. We have a tag for it, dummy.Yeago 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"Aside from the first part it is simply a list of facts--all easily verifiable" - so you say. I'm thinking of adding the following paragraph to this article:
Some contend that Halliburton has a clandestine alliance with Al Qaeda. Examination into the HUQRET contract of 1983 shows Osama Bin Laden as a primary finacier of Halliburton and several of its subsidiaries. It has been hypothesized that Bin Laden has created a terrorism war on the United States primarily to provide justification for American invasion of foreign countries; Halliburton is then given the no-bid contracts to rebuild them, and Bin Laden receives a portion of the proceeds.
Of course, such an addition would be promptly reverted, as I have provided no sources for that content. You may contend that I simply made all that up, but without any sources, it is no less verifiable than the section I removed before.
Yep. But the claims are both interesting and verifiable--I certainly would be the moron who would revert it outright.Yeago 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"What I can't fathom is how you can both remove it and then let charges slip through your fingers that you could use a listen to" - huh? What charges have I let slip through my fingers? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean...
Doubtlessly.=) Yeago 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"Jerry, may I say that wholesale removal is not the way to update content--even if that content has slight' POV issues" - first off, it doesn't have a slight POV issue. It has a severe POV issue, and more importantly, it is completely uncited. And I do not go through articles just yanking out uncited contnet; but if I am actively working on and monitoring an article (as is the case with this one), I make sure that people don't add completely uncited, POV garbage like this. Such content is detrimental to the value of Wikipedia, which is important to me. --JerryOrr 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed about the last part. Where's the POV issue now? There's a noncitation issue, which you've repeated a few times. But the POV issue. Let's have it.Yeago 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Dummy? What are you, seven? If you're going to resort to personal attacks (and particularly lame ones, at that), we can't really continue this discussion. We also won't get anywhere if you continually refuse to read and think about my answers to your questions.
Since you seem unable to click on the link on weasel words, I'll quote the relevant section for you:
"If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."


'Dummy' is simply an honest version of your misapplication and quotation of weasel words. You think somehow that because your side of this conversation has the aire of sophistication, and you cite the holy WP:BS that they belong in some higher class, and that I'm 7. Believe me, I'd gladly be 7 again =).Yeago 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


So you see, you haven't fixed anything about that section; you simply turned an uncited statement into an uncited statement with weasel words, which inherently are non-NPOV. You also graciously volunteered tp "poke around" and find sources for those "easily verifiable" facts; yet none have been forthcoming.
That was this morning, ____. Since I'm doing your job, why don't you attempt patience.Yeago 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming the section is incorrect, and I'm not even saying that we need definitive evidence backing it up; but until a source is provided for it, the section is no better than the mock addition I provided earlier. And if no source is provided, I will remove the section per WP:WEASEL. --JerryOrr 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Insert *energy your wasting could be applied yadda yadda* argument here. It doesn't need to be said, but engaging in internet intelliskirmishes is always preferable to boring stuff like hunting down a few sources. Isn't that so?Yeago 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
See, now all I was looking for was a source. Thank you for providing that. It is not "my job" or anyone's job to go digging around for other people's sources; that is the responsibility of the user adding the content. But I thank you for finding that source; now we can work on incorporating it into the article a little better and cleaning up the language. --JerryOrr 11:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the source Yeago provided, I've tried to clean up the disputed section by making in more NPOV, citing it properly, and removing (in my opinion) unnecessary detail. Hopefully this satisfies everyone! --JerryOrr 11:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deferred compensation and stock options

The part of the article that says Cheney is not bound legally to donate the after tax profit from his stock options are wrong, and I am correcting it. My source is factcheck.org.

82.206.141.122 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)EternalGentleman


[edit] Future of Halliburton

Is Halliburton ready to expand its industry to Iran?

[edit] Inclusion in Anti-corporate activism category

There's been a couple reverts involving the categorization of this article, so I thought I'd start a discussion here. Earlier, I had re-added it to Category:Corporate misbehavior, not realizing that the category was being deleted. However, I still feel that it does not belong in Category:Anti-corporate activism. That category does not have any other corporations in it; it consists entirely people and organizations involved in anti-corporate activism.

I feel that this article should be removed from Category:Anti-corporate activism. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd like to hear a convicing argument. If I don't get one, I'll go ahead and remove Halliburton from the category. --JerryOrr 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement here. One of these things is not like the others... Kuru talk 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


I think the Halliburton is definitely the darling of Corporate (or anti-corporate, I suppose) activism--I think the connection is pretty clear to a fairly big slice of people who delve into such matters. Obviously so much so that it uncontroversially sat in 'Corporate misbehavoir' for a while.
Now, someone has gone about attempting to subsume the many prior 'corporate activism categories' into one. I think this was probably necc, if you see the VfD page there are something like 10 such categories which all pretty much served the same function. Halliburton could well have been added to several of them--a comprimise for simplicity happened to lump these under this name. Its not perfect but it ain't bad.
Giving this new category a shot sounds like a good deal. The category is not exclusively activists, and so targets of said activism aren't mutually excluded. Its clear the creator of the category intended for some looseness and I don't think letting it go for now is going to hurt anything.
Yeago 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


I've spoken to the guy in charge of redoing the categories (see my talk page). He seems to admit his reorganization and mass-removal of categorizations was a hasty thing. I think the category should stay so they are at least in one place--albeit, an imperfect place--when restructuring happens. Removing them disconnects them from the topic again, and they'll have to be refound.Yeago 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Questions of balance

I just did some generally light cleanup of the "Allegations of Fraud" section, but I think it needs a -lot- more work. It's not NPOV; we've got a guy voicing considerable outrage, whatever that means. He was explaining something before, but now he's just saying it. I strongly suspect an enterprising PR person put out a statement for Halliburton, and/or an enterprising reporter tried to get Halliburton/KBR/whatever's side of things. I'm going to abstain -- I've got a distant relative working for the company -- but I think someone ought to give this a good lookover to establish NPOV. --Thatnewguy 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army Terminates Haliburton Contract

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101459_pf.html


See above, and do with what, ye wishes --206.57.91.46 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passage Removed: Misleading, Irrelevant, and False

"Despite statements that the company receives low profit margins from their Iraq contracts, their stock value has gone from $9 in mid-2002 all the way up to $69 as of late-2005. Yearly revenues as of December 31st 2002 were $12.5 billion, and as of December 31st 2004 Halliburton revenues have climbed to $20.5 billion. (Yahoo Finance) The stock hit a record high in January 2006."

The proceeding was "beleted" because Haliburton stock literally peaked at HALF of $69 in late 2005 (under $35). [4] Facts don't get much easier to check. While the revenue estimates appear to be correct, the "sources" listed as claiming these figures do not even mention revenue or imply those numbers in any way. Interesting... As a secondary point, even if the stock had exploded to $100 a share and the revenues had risen to $100B, it's purely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Did Halliburton as a company, or as individuals within, PROFIT from any such circumstances? Companies don't care if revenues and stock value go through the roof unless profit reflects that. If revenue is 100M, but opperating expenses represent 99.5M of it, that company is in bad shape; their ultimate goal is to increase profit not revenue. To say that a company that averages a 12% profit margin is pushing people over to rake in 1-2% isn't too convincing (if that 1-2% is accurate, and if it isn't; write about that instead). Revenue value, specifically, is especially irrelevant with a company like Haliburton that derives most of its value from services, as opposed to manufacturing. In this particular service based company, revenues are extensively tied to contracts, in contrast to a retail chain that would spend most of its revenue gains on infrastructure expansion that would benefit future viability. Military contracts provide almost no long term benefits or profits for Halliburton. Likewise, stock prices are also irrelevant unless you can show that Halliburton insiders profited (i.e. actually sold the stock at that price). If this is the case, it is a matter of public record and should be cited (instead of just assuming so). How has Haliburton unjustly benefited from US gov't contracts? It isn't because of stock value or revenue totals. I'm not saying Halliburton isn't crooked, but if they are, this isn't why.

In summary, the stock prices were removed because they were blatant lies, and the revenue figures were removed because they do not make the point they were intended to. People unfamiliar with the topic might read it and unnecessarily gain a misunderstanding of its significance, and yet worse; they might even pass it on.

--75.20.213.195 07:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Passage Removed again 9/14

[edit] Disputed neutrality?

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? if so, why not adding the appropriate tag? Dan Gluck 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Landmark Graphics Corporation

This is the content of Landmark Graphics Corporation, which seemed better merged here (per http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-September/054712.html particuarly):

Landmark Graphics Corporation was created in Houston in 1982 by John Mouton, Andy Hildebrand, H. Roice Nelson, and Bob Limbaugh, to develop a system for interpreting 3D data from seismic surveys for the oil and gas industry.
The company went on to develop systems for other disciplines within the industry, as well as its OpenWorks database for managing oil and gas industry data.
In 1995 Landmark acquired GeoGraphix to target the market for smaller-scale systems, and in 1996 was itself acquired by Halliburton, operating at first as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Between 2003 and 2006 it was merged with Halliburton.

Merge at will. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overcharging

I don't know if this should be added. But evidently according to Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers, Halliburton charges the United States Government $45 for a six-pack of Coca-Cola and $100 to do a load of laundry. [5] MichaelSH 05:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraq for Sale and DailyKos definitely sound POV. Even if I personally agree with that viewpoint, Wikipedia is still NPOV. If that particular reference can be verified (for example, by examining what Iraq for Sale cited their material from), then it can and should be added TetrisAnarchist 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Employee safety

I cleaned up the wording to make this less POV and more factual. However, I think the entire paragraph should probably be deleted as irrelevant, unless Halliburton's general safety practices are poorer than its competitors in the industry. Lots of truck drivers in Iraq have been kidnapped and killed -- it is one of the most dangerous places on earth. I do not care how much they pay, you gotta have a death wish to take such a job -- it is probably far safer to be a uniformed soldier. Unless they start hiring truck drivers with combat infantry experience, and using armored vehicles instead of ordinary trucks, arming the truck drivers would not make them any safer against organized insurgent ambushes. This is not really indicative of negligence on the part of Halliburton. Most multinationals would not provide such services at all because the risks of loss and liability are too great.RandallC 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


"Employee safety Halliburton does not arm its civilian truck drivers, who in Iraq are often the target of insurgent attacks"

what ?! I just watched "Iraq for sale", they sent their drivers on a "no civillian" road to get killed, and it is implied that they did so to bill the U.S. gov for destroyed materials (trucks and fuel), the trucks didn't even have spare tires and clearly no escort 216.113.96.109 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/Talk%7EHalliburton_6669.html"