No I'm suggesting that plans to accomplish a task should be based on a knowledge of the task to be accomplished, and that plans to destroy (and the accompanying gravity) should not be marginalized by half-assed "shot-in-the-dark" assessments of how to "undeleete" the damage. Planning for reconstruction before the war begins is not due diligence -- it's a gross waste of time, exacerbated by the gross incopetence of believing that it's due diligence, in addition to becoming a justification for destructive acts not yet undertaken.
Would you bid on a project to build an HR/Payroll system if the company who needed it refused to provide any information about their company, what they do, how much money they have, how many employees or how many offices? Would you feel productive working on a proposal for such a project? Given that the news article I read occurred only weeks before the deployment of troops, and that we still don't know the full extent of damages or the duration of our stay in Iraq, I don't think delaying the decision to do something about the damage until reasonable decisions could be made would have changed much, other than perhaps indicating a modicum of at least decency if not common sense on the part of our government. That is of course, assuming that the article I read was accurate, which they often aren't, although that's the media's failing not the govt's. ike ------ Original Message ------ From: William H Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 28, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Th ought >> Which seemed not only backward in a business sense > >hrm... are you suggesting that businesses (governments/whatever) should >blindly undertake ventures without having a plan in place to fix what >might break or be broken? Or perhaps that they shouldn't make plans for >the future based on possible outcomes? > > > but also just plain evil > >or duly diligent... > >will > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>I remember reading a news article that said the US had started taking bids for the >>reconstruction of Iraq... prior to any declaration of war or the deployment of any >>troops there... Which seemed not only backward in a business sense, but also just >>plain evil... It's like saying "don't worry, I've already started taking bids from >>Dr's to reconstruct your face after I smash it in with this lead pipe". >> >>ike >> >>------ Original Message ------ >>From: Haggerty, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Aug 28, 2003 01:07 PM >>Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Th ought >> >> >> >>>Well Jim, a public bidding process would probably have been somewhat >>>suspicious considering we were 'debating' whether or not to go to war... >>> >>>M >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:52 PM >>>>To: CF-Community >>>>Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals >>>>Greater Than Th ought >>>> >>>> >>>>I understand your point, but chafe at the example. >>>> >>>>"Have the troops starve"? Are you seriously suggesting that >>>>we entered Iraq with no plan to feed our troops? That the >>>>only way to feed them was to forfeit legitimate processes for >>>>"last minute emergency decisions" involving politically >>>>valuable, no bid contracts? >>>> >>>>I'm sorry, but I always suspect unwarrantedly extreme >>>>arguments. They tend to mask illicit behavior. >>>> >>>>Jim Davis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:13 AM >>>>>To: CF-Community >>>>>Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Than Th >>>> >>>> >>>>>ought >>>>> >>>>>By having proved yourself on multiple deployments. >>>>> >>>>>These were last minute emergency decisions. Would you rather have >>>>> >>>>> >>>>seen >>>> >>>> >>>>>the >>>>>troops starve from not have the proper logistics in place? >>>>> >>>>>Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:53 AM >>>>>To: CF-Community >>>>>Subject: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater Than >>>>>Thought >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Kevin Schmidt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Haliburton is the best at what it does, period, that's they win >>>>>>contracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>How do you win a "no bid" contract? >>>>> >>>>>Jochem >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
