Another milestone in Iraq

[BBond]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Haliburton wins no matter what is done.. It was setup that way.. It just grows bigger and bigger and bigger with the increasing frequency of no bid contracts.. etc

And the seeds of that growth were planted back in 1992 by one Richard Cheney.

It was Dick Cheney, as defense secretary in 1992, who spearheaded the movement to privatize most of the military's civil logistics activities. Under the direction of Secretary Cheney, the Pentagon paid $9 million to Halliburton's subsidiary, KBR, to conduct a study to determine whether private companies like itself should handle all of the military's civil logistics. KBR's classified study concluded that greater privatization of logistics was in the government's best interest. Shortly thereafter, on August 3, 1992, Secretary Cheney awarded the first comprehensive LOGCAP contract to KBR. The Washington Post reported "The Pentagon chose [KBR] to carry out the study and subsequently selected the company to implement its own plan." Three years later, in 1995, Halliburton hired Cheney as its CEO.

In 1997, two years after Cheney became CEO of Halliburton, KBR's LOGCAP contract was not renewed and the government alleged the company engaged in fraudulent billing practices. The independent auditing arm of Congress, the GAO, had criticized KBR's performance during America's war in the Balkans. GAO said KBR's cost-overruns in the Balkans inflated the original contract price by 32 percent. After KBR was effectively fired by the Army in 1997, the LOGCAP contract was awarded to Halliburton competitor DynCorp. But, after Cheney became vice president in 2001, DynCorp was fired and KBR was re-awarded the contract.

Today, 90 percent of KBR's work under LOGCAP is being done in Iraq. Over 24,000 Halliburton employees and subcontract workers are employed to carryout LOGCAP in the Iraq-Kuwait region.

Halliburton's revenue from LOGCAP increased from $320 million in the second quarter of 2003 to over $2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2003. As of May 2004, the federal government had spent nearly $5 billion on LOGCAP since KBR became the sole contractor in 2001. The original value of LOGCAP in Iraq was estimated at over $4 billion, but the value of the contract is now over $8 billion and could reach $18 billion. These values can change as war conditions change. The $8 billion figure for Iraq does not include KBR's LOGCAP business in dozens of other countries around the globe, including Guantanimo Bay, Cuba, where it constructed the prisons used to house prisoners from Afghanistan.

Link

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Taggart
It's a tough situation, but I have faith that the President can steer us through this and the world will be a better place in the end.

I have a question...why do you have faith in the President? Has he done anything to earn your trust? Has he shown himself to be the kind of person who will be able ot steer us through Iraq? There isn't anything always wrong with faith, but blind faith seems foolish.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Taggart
It's a tough situation, but I have faith that the President can steer us through this and the world will be a better place in the end.

Religious nutjobs. :roll:

I'm not religious at all. The last time I went to church was 1998, and that was because a chick I wanted to bang wanted me to go. Nice assumption there pal.

You "have faith" despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Even if its not Christian, your faith is of a religious nature.

Haha you try to dodge the ownage, but you can't!

Read a few posts below yours.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hey guys, any bets on when we hit 2,000?

I'm thinking mid December, unless we have another banner month like August, which would make it closer to mid November.

Maybe we can start a betting pool; the winner who picks the date we hit 2,000 wins this.

No thanks. There are no winners.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Point taken. Who cares about a few dead kids when there's big money to be made?

 

[NoSmirk]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hey guys, any bets on when we hit 2,000?

I'm thinking mid December, unless we have another banner month like August, which would make it closer to mid November.

Maybe we can start a betting pool; the winner who picks the date we hit 2,000 wins this.

EDIT: Maybe this would be more fitting.

OMG! This SO crosses the line. Why do the moderators allow this type of crap in this forum? A F**KING BETTING POOL ON THE DEATH OF AMERICANS?! My god you are an asshole sir.. Wow.. just wow... Pretty soon we will see the left of this forum actually CELEBRATING the death of Americans.. maybe you could throw a party when we reach 2000 as well? I can't believe this forum, it makes me absolutely sick to read things like this, and the moderators just look the other way and do nothing.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hey guys, any bets on when we hit 2,000?

I'm thinking mid December, unless we have another banner month like August, which would make it closer to mid November.

Maybe we can start a betting pool; the winner who picks the date we hit 2,000 wins this.

EDIT: Maybe this would be more fitting.

OMG! This SO crosses the line. Why do the moderators allow this type of crap in this forum? A F**KING BETTING POOL ON THE DEATH OF AMERICANS?! My god you are an asshole sir.. Wow.. just wow... Pretty soon we will see the left of this forum actually CELEBRATING the death of Americans.. maybe you could throw a party when we reach 2000 as well? I can't believe this forum, it makes me absolutely sick to read things like this, and the moderators just look the other way and do nothing.

You obviously don't appreciate dark humor. No one is saying that death of American soldiers is a good thing and many of us would like to see them brought home, out of harms way. And who decided that the troops needed to be over there anyway? Oh yes, it's your lord and savior George Dubya!

 

[dphantom]

May want to find better sources for your conspiracies. Only among the far far left is Jaun Cole at all credible.

Link

Try my two links below in my sig. Michael Yon is currently in Mosul, on hte ground and can provide first hand accounts.

Bill Roggio, while a bit of a Iraq war supporter (as am I), nevertheless reports what is happening as it happens. The Euphrates campaign currently ongoing is quite interesting in its results. Take a look especially at the crude chemical weapon al-queda tried to explode.

Fortunately, US forces spotted the chemicals rigged with explosives and safely deactivated the bomb.

If you want to balance your leftist view, try Martin Kramer.

Link

He leans the opposite and has been a thorn in Cole's side for some time tryingh to right the misrepresentaitons of Cole.



If it had gone off, many civilians would have been killed.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hey guys, any bets on when we hit 2,000?

I'm thinking mid December, unless we have another banner month like August, which would make it closer to mid November.

Maybe we can start a betting pool; the winner who picks the date we hit 2,000 wins this.

EDIT: Maybe this would be more fitting.

OMG! This SO crosses the line. Why do the moderators allow this type of crap in this forum? A F**KING BETTING POOL ON THE DEATH OF AMERICANS?! My god you are an asshole sir.. Wow.. just wow... Pretty soon we will see the left of this forum actually CELEBRATING the death of Americans.. maybe you could throw a party when we reach 2000 as well? I can't believe this forum, it makes me absolutely sick to read things like this, and the moderators just look the other way and do nothing.

If the leaders of our country have shown such reckless disregard for human life (American, Iraqi, or otherwise), I'm not sure why a simple citizen like myself speaking in a public forum should be held to any higher standard.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
The current level of violence in Iraq is unmatched. It's the Killing Fields, all over again, courtesy of the USA. What have we done...

The same thing that we keep doing, blunder about as if we don't have to worry about anything, as if we're the final authority on all things good and true. You'd think that Vietnam would have remained an enduring example of what the fed is capable of if we aren't up their asses every second. Alas it STILL seems like the American public, by and large, will swallow any lie as long as it's couched in patrotic\heroic rhetoric.

The Iraqi people had never done ANYTHING to us, yet look what's happening.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Taggart
It's a tough situation, but I have faith that the President can steer us through this and the world will be a better place in the end.

You're joking, right? Please tell me that you're joking. :Q

 

[Pabster]

Yep, all is lost. We should have just left Saddam in power. <sigh>

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yep, all is lost. We should have just left Saddam in power. <sigh>

Yes, we should have. He never hurt me or anyone in my country.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yep, all is lost. We should have just left Saddam in power. <sigh>

Yes, we should have. He never hurt me or anyone in my country.

Wow, you must be a great humanitarian! :laugh:

 

[HardWarrior]

It should be painfully obvious to even the most avid Bush Kool-Aid drinker that Hussein's Iraq was never any threat to the US.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yep, all is lost. We should have just left Saddam in power. <sigh>

Yes, we should have. He never hurt me or anyone in my country.

Wow, you must be a great humanitarian! :laugh:

I just don't like to see my country's resources wasted on foolish things. We have enough people in this country with problems...when we're perfect, we can worry about the other countries.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yep, all is lost. We should have just left Saddam in power. <sigh>

Yes, we should have. He never hurt me or anyone in my country.

Wow, you must be a great humanitarian! :laugh:

I just don't like to see my country's resources wasted on foolish things. We have enough people in this country with problems...when we're perfect, we can worry about the other countries.

Yup, great humanitarian outlook there.

Here's an idea: You don't have to be perfect to help other people out. Perfect is a state that can never really be achieved.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yep, all is lost. We should have just left Saddam in power. <sigh>

Yes, we should have. He never hurt me or anyone in my country.

Wow, you must be a great humanitarian! :laugh:

I just don't like to see my country's resources wasted on foolish things. We have enough people in this country with problems...when we're perfect, we can worry about the other countries.

Yup, great humanitarian outlook there.

Here's an idea: You don't have to be perfect to help other people out. Perfect is a state that can never really be achieved.

So spending $200 billion on our OWN people who live below the poverty line wouldn't be humanitarian?

Or how about helping nations in Africa? Hundreds of millions living oppressed, starving, and diseased over there. I'm sure $200 billion could do a lot there too. So why not help over there instead of Iraq?

Oil. Halliburton. Military spending.

Three things we wouldn't have if we decided to help humanity elsewhere.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
It should be painfully obvious to even the most avid Bush Kool-Aid drinker that Hussein's Iraq was never any threat to the US.

Let's say Hussein was left in power. He would have continued to violate UN resolutions, and eventually the sanctions would be lifted. You can't tell me that someone so insane, so narcissistic and shown to have used WMD on people in his own country, wouldn't reactivate his weapons program? He would not have stood idly by as Iran developed nuclear weapons. Disregarding every other motivation, a nuclear Iran would be reason alone for Saddam to reactivate his programs. I will never believe in a million years that as soon as the pressure was off Saddam he wouldn't start making WMD's again.

I am not advocating or disagreeing with invasion in this post. I simply cannot agree that Hussein's Iraq wasn't a threat to the US and the world.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
So spending $200 billion on our OWN people who live below the poverty line wouldn't be humanitarian?

Or how about helping nations in Africa? Hundreds of millions living oppressed, starving, and diseased over there. I'm sure $200 billion could do a lot there too. So why not help over there instead of Iraq?

Oil. Halliburton. Military spending.

Three things we wouldn't have if we decided to help humanity elsewhere.

I'm simply stating that you don't have to be perfect to assist in humanitarian aid. If you refuse to help those that are in need, then you're not much of a humanitarian.

I'm not saying that Iraq was humanitarian.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
It should be painfully obvious to even the most avid Bush Kool-Aid drinker that Hussein's Iraq was never any threat to the US.

Let's say Hussein was left in power. He would have continued to violate UN resolutions, and eventually the sanctions would be lifted. You can't tell me that someone so insane, so narcissistic and shown to have used WMD on people in his own country, wouldn't reactivate his weapons program? He would not have stood idly by as Iran developed nuclear weapons. Disregarding every other motivation, a nuclear Iran would be reason alone for Saddam to reactivate his programs. I will never believe in a million years that as soon as the pressure was off Saddam he wouldn't start making WMD's again.

I am not advocating or disagreeing with invasion in this post. I simply cannot agree that Hussein's Iraq wasn't a threat to the US and the world.

In your scenario any nation could be regarded as a threat to the world based on what you think they might do.

There was no WMD. No connection to 9/11. No terrorists until Bush brought them to Iraq.

They have a name for attacking nations based on what you think they might do. It's called naked aggression and the aggressor is always in the wrong.

Bush did to Iraq exactly what bin Laden did to America. How can you defend Bush and attack bin Laden when their actions prove that they are one and the same?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Taggart
He would have continued to violate UN resolutions, and eventually the sanctions would be lifted.

We aren't the enforcment arm of the UN, and the sanctions were designed to be lifted once Iraq was declared WMD free. The fed wouldn't let the certification happen, and for no logical reason. That leaves arrogance, greed, hubris and a need to control everything, which will end in the US dissolving. And please, don't think it can't happen. Great and powerful nations have, to this point, all ended up the same way, and for the same reasons.

You can't tell me that someone so insane, so narcissistic and shown to have used WMD on people in his own country, wouldn't reactivate his weapons program?

First, I'm not trying to tell you anything, we're just bumping opinions here. Second, you're buying propaganda that's so old and tired it's pathetic. Every time the fed finds it necessary to villfy another nation, it trots out the same remote mental diagnoses that never turns out to be true. Hussein didn't indicate in any way that he was insane or incapable of making a deal, if fact he was our best friend at one time not too long ago and was STILL trying to make a deal shortly before the 2003 attack. Since when is a narcissistic leader a justification for an invasion? If that was a good excuse for an unprovocked and unjustified attack, we'd be fighting the entire world, right now. And so what if he did reactivate his oh-so-scary "weapons" programs?" We tolerated a well-armed USSR for 70-years. From what I've read, both us and the USSR KNEW that touching off the BIG ONE was NOT in either countries best interest, and went to extraordinary lengths to make sure it didn't happen. Hussein was more than smart enough to understand MAD.

He would not have stood idly by as Iran developed nuclear weapons.

And if he would have developed them sooner we would have left the Iraqi people alone and the world would be a better place for it.

Disregarding every other motivation, a nuclear Iran would be reason alone for Saddam to reactivate his programs.

Which would have been just fine. A nuclear arsenal has a way of civilizing a country and keeping them out of our sights at the same time.

I will never believe in a million years that as soon as the pressure was off Saddam he wouldn't start making WMD's again.

Which, again, would have been just fine for all concerned.

I am not advocating or disagreeing with invasion in this post. I simply cannot agree that Hussein's Iraq wasn't a threat to the US and the world.

That's your personal opinion and I respect it, but the facts on the ground differ greatly.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Taggart
Let's say Hussein was left in power. He would have continued to violate UN resolutions, and eventually the sanctions would be lifted. You can't tell me that someone so insane, so narcissistic and shown to have used WMD on people in his own country, wouldn't reactivate his weapons program? He would not have stood idly by as Iran developed nuclear weapons. Disregarding every other motivation, a nuclear Iran would be reason alone for Saddam to reactivate his programs. I will never believe in a million years that as soon as the pressure was off Saddam he wouldn't start making WMD's again.

I am not advocating or disagreeing with invasion in this post. I simply cannot agree that Hussein's Iraq wasn't a threat to the US and the world.

Don't even bother to reason with these clowns. The liberals will never admit that the world (and the US in particular) is better off without Saddam. After all, if it had been Kerry, Saddam would still be in power, doing the things you mention.

You can argue about the war; but to continue this charade that somehow we are not safer without Saddam is asinine.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
From "dancing in the streets" to flyers warning not to congregate in large groups so as not to make an easy target.... but the terrorists are only in a few small areas. Uh-huh, tell me another one.

They're in their "last throes" because their "back has been broken" and "we're winning" and "we're making really good progress."

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Taggart
Let's say Hussein was left in power. He would have continued to violate UN resolutions, and eventually the sanctions would be lifted. You can't tell me that someone so insane, so narcissistic and shown to have used WMD on people in his own country, wouldn't reactivate his weapons program? He would not have stood idly by as Iran developed nuclear weapons. Disregarding every other motivation, a nuclear Iran would be reason alone for Saddam to reactivate his programs. I will never believe in a million years that as soon as the pressure was off Saddam he wouldn't start making WMD's again.

I am not advocating or disagreeing with invasion in this post. I simply cannot agree that Hussein's Iraq wasn't a threat to the US and the world.

Don't even bother to reason with these clowns. The liberals will never admit that the world (and the US in particular) is better off without Saddam. After all, if it had been Kerry, Saddam would still be in power, doing the things you mention.

You can argue about the war; but to continue this charade that somehow we are not safer without Saddam is asinine.

It amazes me that someone thinks it would be ok to have allowed Saddam to get nuclear weapons. People are entitled to their opinions. Thankfully, it's probably less than 1% of the population that holds this view. Probably less than that, actually. There are 280 million Americans, I would bet less than 1 million, and that's being generous.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
The current level of violence in Iraq is unmatched. It's the Killing Fields, all over again, courtesy of the USA. What have we done...

Ahh. But they are "free".

Free to do what, I couldn't tell you, since it's too dangerous in Iraq to actually go out and practice being free.

Mission accomplished.