Those Great People in Halliburton..... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 09:58 AM

Let's see...... Cheney ran the company, Bush heavily supports the company and what do they do.....

Overcharged the military on fuel

Back order necessary supplies

And now....... now we don't have to worry about the Iraqis and "insurgents" kiling our own men.... Halliburton will do it for the billions and billions of our tax dollars we pay them.......

Pathetic. I just do not understand how anyone, especially those who truly supports our troops or has military experience, can sit idly by and allow this to happen and NOT blame the President for it.

But it's all about partisanship isn't it? Fuck the troops, fuck what Halliburton is doing.... we can't admit the GOP is wrong and allowing this BS to happen out of greed, now can we?

Of course there's no truth in it, the Dems are just looking for problems..... the company that overcharged the military for fuel, and backlogged necessary materials, would never do such a thing...... right? So there is no need for investigations to se if there is any truth to this at all now is there?

Quote:

Halliburton Cited in Iraq Contamination By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jan 23, 4:12 AM ET

Water supplied to a U.S. base in Iraq was contaminated and the contractor in charge, Halliburton, failed to tell troops and civilians at the facility, according to internal documents from the company and interviews with former Halliburton officials.

Although the allegations came from Halliburton's own water quality experts, the company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney denied there was a contamination problem at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi.

"We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said a July 15, 2005, memo by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.

"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," Granger wrote in one of several documents.

The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations Monday.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who will chair the session, held a number of similar inquiries last year on contracting abuses in Iraq. He said Democrats were acting on their own because they had not been able to persuade committee chairmen in the Republican-run Senate to investigate.

The company's former water treatment expert at Camp Junction City said he discovered the problem last March, a statement confirmed by his e-mail the day after he tested the water.

While bottled water was available for drinking, the contaminated water was used for virtually everything else, including handwashing, laundry, bathing and making coffee, said water expert Ben Carter of Cedar City, Utah.

Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, Ky., said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps — problems he also suffered.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Melissa Norcross, said its own inspection found neither contaminated water nor medical evidence to substantiate reports of illnesses at the base. The company now operates its own water treatment plant there, she said.

A military medical unit that visited Camp Ramadi in mid-April found nothing out of the ordinary in terms of water quality, said Marine Corps Maj. Tim Keefe, a military spokesman. Water-quality testing records from May 23 show the water within normal parameters, he said.

"The allegations appear not to have merit," Keefe said.

Halliburton has contracts to provide a number of services to U.S. forces in Iraq and was responsible for the water quality at the Ramadi base.

Granger's July 15 memo said the exposure had gone on for "possibly a year" and added, "I am not sure if any attempt to notify the exposed population was ever made."

The first memo on the problem — written by Carter to Halliburton officials on March 24, 2005 — was an "incident report" from tests Carter performed the previous day.

"It is my opinion that the water source is without question contaminated with numerous micro-organisms, including Coliform bacteria," Carter wrote. "There is little doubt that raw sewage is routinely dumped upstream of intake much less than the required 2 mile distance.

"Therefore, it is my conclusion that chlorination of our water tanks while certainly beneficial is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure."

Carter said he resigned in early April after Halliburton officials did not take any action to inform the camp population.

The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. "They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut," he said.

On at least one occasion, Carter said, he spoke to the chief military surgeon at the base, asking him whether he was aware of stomach problems afflicting people. He said the surgeon told him he would look into it.

"They brushed it under the carpet," Carter said. "I told everyone, 'Don't take showers, use bottled water."

A July 14, 2005, memo showed that Halliburton's public relations department knew of the problem.

"I don't want to turn it into a big issue right now," staff member Jennifer Dellinger wrote in the memo, "but if we end up getting some media calls I want to make sure we have all the facts so we are ready to respond."

Halliburton's performance in Iraq has been criticized in a number of military audits, and congressional Democrats have contended that the Bush administration has favored the company with noncompetitive contracts.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060123/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-

NCB · 01-23-2006, 10:24 AM

Shockingly (

), pan didnt highlight this part of the article:

Quote:

A military medical unit that visited Camp Ramadi in mid-April found nothing out of the ordinary in terms of water quality, said Marine Corps Maj. Tim Keefe, a military spokesman. Water-quality testing records from May 23 show the water within normal parameters, he said.

"The allegations appear not to have merit," Keefe said.

Rekna · 01-23-2006, 10:24 AM

maybe Erin Brockovich should look into it...

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Shockingly (

), pan didnt highlight this part of the article:

And what exactly are Halliburton and the military going to say???????

So because Halliburton and the military says there is no merit to it there is no merit to it at all?

It's not worth investigating the reports and checking to make sure things are up to code?

This is the same company that overcharged the military on fuel, that has back ordered and not shipped out needed materials (all the while taking the money), that has been surrounded in controversey left and right, and has on numerous occassions come clean and admitted wrong doing.

Yet, we're supposed to believe them when they say everything is up to code?

I am of the belief that perhaps we should see if this report has merit. Let's see the medical reports on the cases of diarrehea, "stomach flu,and diseases.

What is wrong with checking out these reports to make sure Halliburton is doing their job correctly?

Or perhaps we should just continue to buy into what they say and fuck making sure our men are getting the best we can give them?

I didn't highlight this either:

"We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said a July 15, 2005, memo by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.

"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," Granger wrote in one of several documents.

But the whole point of my posting the article was to show that maybe, there is merit and the GOP should allow it to be investigated.

Bill O'Rights · 01-23-2006, 10:47 AM

Let's give this topic appropriate discourse, while keeping the emotionalism to a minimum. It serves no purpose, and pollutes the thread.

Willravel · 01-23-2006, 11:28 AM

What surprises me the very most, is despite the mountains of bad PR Haliburton has gotten, the investors are still not afraid. This sets a very dangerous prescedent, spanning the entire spectrum of corporations. Even if you get caught, you're probably going to get away with it. Even after Enron, this is allowed to continue.

Our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. At the end of the day, we are responsible for watching our government and speaking up and taking action when it does something we disagree with. It is our RIGHT. With global corporations, there are no such checks and balances. This is when the Libertarian in me sits in the back and sucks his thumb. A free market econemy is like a get out of jail free card for those corportations, such as Haliburton, who see fit to do as they please, public good be damned. The problem is that the producer controls the consumer in this disfunctional market relationship. Bush and Cheny, obviously biased, have masive influence over military spending. They also benifit from that spending. Isn't this the kind of conflict of interest that we have laws for? Aren't there laws that prevent this type of arrangement? If not, then we should start a movement in order to kep our econemy free from both tyranical governemnt, AND tyranical corporations. Neither of those entities should go unckecked.

Ustwo · 01-23-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What surprises me the very most, is despite the mountains of bad PR Haliburton has gotten, the investors are still not afraid. This sets a very dangerous prescedent, spanning the entire spectrum of corporations. Even if you get caught, you're probably going to get away with it. Even after Enron, this is allowed to continue.

That or prehaps the investors are not a bunch of left wing pundits looking for any angle to attack the Bush admin, and know that Haliburton is a solid company worth trusting with their money. Bad PR does not = Bad in reality.

Bill O'Rights · 01-23-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

That or prehaps the investors are not a bunch of left wing pundits looking for any angle to attack the Bush admin

perhaps.

I mean...it's got to be that liberal media that I keep hearing so much about. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Haliburton is a solid company worth trusting with their money.

No question about that. I think Haliburton is a damn safe investment, no matter what your political views may be. Hell, I wish my 401K were ALL Haliburton. I don't know of a safer investment out there.

Ustwo · 01-23-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

perhaps.

I mean...it's got to be that liberal media that I keep hearing so much about. Right?

We all know the media is fair and balanced Bill.

Quote:

No question about that. I think Haliburton is a damn safe investment, no matter what your political views may be. Hell, I wish my 401K were ALL Haliburton. I don't know of a safer investment out there.

Well while the common wisdom is to diversify, thats just for saftey. Focusing is the way to make real money

Willravel · 01-23-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

That or prehaps the investors are not a bunch of left wing pundits looking for any angle to attack the Bush admin, and know that Haliburton is a solid company worth trusting with their money. Bad PR does not = Bad in reality.

Stoping a conflict of interests isn't a partisan action. It should be something we all do together. The investors are not invested in the company because Haliburton is a wonderful, helpful, and decent company. They are there for money. I have no illusions about that. What I was hoping is to force them to withdraw their funds from the company be creating the illusion of instability, so that the company learns to mind itself when trying to wade in dirty water.

Halibruton = bad, PR or not.

Ustwo · 01-23-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Stoping a conflict of interests isn't a partisan action. It should be something we all do together. The investors are not invested in the company because Haliburton is a wonderful, helpful, and decent company. They are there for money. I have no illusions about that. What I was hoping is to force them to withdraw their funds from the company be creating the illusion of instability, so that the company learns to mind itself when trying to wade in dirty water.

Halibruton = bad, PR or not.

You expected some sort of stock sell off as a form of protest of a companies practices based on media alligations?

You were hoping to 'force them' to withdraw their funds? Force who and how willl?

Willravel · 01-23-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You expected some sort of stock sell off as a form of protest of a companies practices based on media alligations?

No, I expected it to fall when they started getting investigasted. Investigated for what, you might ask? Investigated for:

Quote:

Tax Evasion

While Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries registered in tax-friendly locations went from 9 in 1995 to 44 in 1999. And guess what? Halliburton's federal taxes plummeted from $302 million in 1998 to less than zero, an $85 million rebate in 1999. - Source - Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002

Illegal Business Practices - Corporate Corruption

Remember that Cheney was CEO in the LATE 90's. Although, the AP forgot to mention that in this article - ''A jury has awarded $70 million to a Houston man who claimed that Halliburton and another oil company cheated him out of the chance to develop an oil field in Kazakhstan in the late 1990s.'' - Source - Associated Press, October 25, 2003

Illegal Trade

In a letter to Donald Rumsfeld, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) said, "Halliburton Co. subsidiaries and joint ventures had done business in Iran, Iraq and Libya, in spite of U.S. sanctions against those countries." - Source - San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003

Illegal Arms Trade - Selling Warheads

"An attorney for the head of a New Mexico anti-terrorism training firm is asking why prosecutors have zealously pursued his client for allegedly stockpiling warheads but ignored the company from they purchased the weapons. The attorney for High Energy Access Tool's president David Hudak, says Halliburton Corporation solicited Hudak to purchase about 2,400 warheads. Bob Gorence says the company offered the warheads as demolition charges and not as the government-owned military items that are illegal to posses." - Source - Associated Press, April 28, 2003

Bribing Officials, Part I

According to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission report filed by Halliburton, one of Halliburton's subsidiaries paid a Nigerian official $2.4 million dollars in return for tax breaks. - Source - The Guardian, May 9,2003

Bribing Officials, Part II

The Halliburton subsidiary of Kellogg, Brown, and Root, and a French engineering firm, are being investigated by the French financial crimes squad for the payment of up to $200,000,000 in under the counter "commissions" (read: kick back, or bribe) for a contract in Nigeria. - Source - The Guardian, in London, Oct. 11, 2003

Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part I

Under Cheney's watch, Halliburton was fined $2 million for consistently over billing the Pentagon. - Source - Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002

Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part II?

According to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif), "Halliburton billed the government an average price of $1.59 per gallon (3.7 litres), excluding the company's fee of 2%-7%,"

"He (Waxman) said the average wholesale cost of gasoline during that period in the Middle East was about 71 cents a gallon, a figure an oil industry source told Reuters was accurate. That meant Halliburton was charging more than 90 cents a gallon to transport fuel into Iraq from Kuwait."

"When we checked with independent experts to see if this fee was reasonable, they were stunned,' said Waxman, adding a reasonable transport cost would be 10 to 25 cents per gallon, especially as the US military was providing security. - Source - Reuters, October 16, 2003

Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part III?

"As of Oct. 19, Halliburton had imported 61.3 million gallons of gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq, and the company was paid $162.5 million for an average price of $2.65 a gallon, Rep. Henry Waxman (D- Calif) and Rep. John Dingell (D) wrote.'' - Source - Yahoo, October 30, 2003

Government Favors for Halliburton, Part I

During Cheney's watch Halliburton received $1.5 billion in government financing and loan guarantees. - Source - Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002

Immunity from Polluting Drinking Water - Government Favors, Part II

As part of the new Energy Bill, there is a provision that, if it becomes law, "the EPA would be helpless even if the technique pumped pollutants into drinking-water wells." The provision, favored by Senate Republicans, has already passed the Republican controlled House. This provision specifically names the process, ‘hydraulic fracturing', that will be immune from regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency. - Source - Denver Post, Sept. 14, 2003

Lying about a Nuclear Threat

There are many examples of this, but the most blatant is when he said that, "Iraq has reconstituted it's Nuclear program", then we found that that claim was based on documents he knew to be forged. These forged documents claimed Iraq attempted to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Nigeria. Cheney ask the CIA to send someone over to Nigeria. The CIA sent Ex- Ambassador Wilson over, and he found that the documents were fake, and reported this back to Cheney's office. This is the same Wilson whose wife was outed by senior Bush officials, after he told his story to the news. She was a covert CIA agent. Revealing her identify as a CIA agent could have risked the lives of many of her contacts. - Source - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX

Conflict of Interest - Lying about Financial Ties

On NBC's "Meet the Press", Sept. 14, 2003, Cheney stated that he has "no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." He also said he had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests." - That is a bold-faced lie. In reality, "Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with payments scheduled to continue for three more years." - Cheney also has "433,333 stock options" valued at more than $10,500,000.00 (433,333 stock options * Today's Stock Price). - Source - MSNBC, Sept. 26, 2003

The No-Bid Contract, Government Favors, Part III

Prior to the war, a Halliburton subsidiary was secretly awarded a two-year, no bid contract worth up to $7,000,000,000. It was originally communicated that the contract was to put out oil well fires and to handle other unspecified duties. As it turns out, those unspecified duties also give Halliburton control of oil wells, and much more. - Source - Chicago Tribune, May 8, 2003

More Lying

The stated reason why Halliburton received the no-bid contract is because the Bush Administration needed to keep it secret for 'National Security' reasons, and because of their unique resources to handle the problems, but - ''Bob Grace is president of GSM Consulting, a small company in Amarillo, Texas, that has fought oil well fires all over the world. Grace worked for the Kuwait government after the first Gulf War and was in charge of firefighting strategy for the huge Bergan Oil Field, which had more than 300 fires." GSM Consulting was not given an opportunity nor a no-bid contract. - Source - CBS, Sept. 21, 2003

Losing an Abestos Lawsuit

In 2002, Halliburton agreed to a $4,000,000,000 cash-and-stock deal to settle 200,000 asbestos lawsuits. - Source - Reuters, Sept. 2, 2003

Government Favors, Part IV

"Senators are considering a measure that would create a $108 billion fund to pay workers exposed to asbestos, a cancer- causing insulation and fireproofing material. A study by lawyers for asbestos victims estimated the measure would save Halliburton and 10 other companies $15 billion, leading to concerns the company is delaying settlement talks in hopes the bill passes." - Source - Pittsburgh Tribune- Review, July 23, 2003

Corporate Corruption - Filing Bankruptcy to avoid taking responsibility for your actions.

If Government favors won't work to avoid paying the asbestos lawsuit, then try filing for BANKRUPTCY. "The oilfield services company said it is now in a position to make a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in November for its subsidiaries -- DII Industries, Kellogg Brown, & Root and others involved in asbestos litigation. Once filed, the bankruptcy plan automatically blocks any further asbestos claims, even if the court's stay has expired." - Source - Reuters, Sept. 29, 2003

Even though they are making billions - ''Halliburton…yesterday reported soaring revenues from its contracts to help rebuild Iraq...The company said sales in the third quarter were 39% higher at $4.1 billion'' - Source - The Guardian, London, October 10, 2003

Paying Halliburton instead of buying food for the Iraqi poor

''Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and and Rep. John Dingell (D) also said last week that the UN oil-for-food program was being used to pay Halliburton, in possible violation of a UN Security Council resolution.'' - Source - AFP - October 27th, 2003 and the US Army Corp of Engineers

Tax Breaks for the Energy Industry (Including Halliburton), Government Favors V

"Congressional negotiators are weighing House and Senate proposals to include dozens of tax breaks for (energy) industries in pending energy legislation, even though they could add as much as $19 billion to the federal budget deficit in the next decade.'' - Source - Washington Post, September 9,2003

Government Favors VI - Blanket Immunity for oil companies doing business in Iraq

If that wasn't enough, on May 22nd, 2003, Bush issued Executive Order 13303, that specifically gives immunity to oil companies in Iraq.

"It also declared a national emergency as the justification for sweeping aside all federal statues, including the Alien Tort Claims Act, and appears to provide immunity against contractual disputes, discrimination suits, violations of labor practices, international treaties, environmental disasters and human rights violations. Even more, it doesn't limit immunity to the production of oil, but also protects individuals, companies and corporations involved in selling and marketing the oil as well." - Source - San Francisco Chronicle, August 8, 2003

Government Favors VII - Free Trade in the Middle East (i.e. No tariffs, taxes)

Now Mr. Bush, we wouldn't want billion dollar companies paying any taxes would we? - "In a similar address in May, Bush highlighted the importance of promoting democracy and called for the establishment of a Middle East free trade zone." - Source - Jerusalem Post, November 7, 2003

http://www.independent-media.tv/item...der%20Reported

aceventura3 · 01-23-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Let's see...... Cheney ran the company, Bush heavily supports the company and what do they do.....

Overcharged the military on fuel

Back order necessary supplies

And now....... now we don't have to worry about the Iraqis and "insurgents" kiling our own men.... Halliburton will do it for the billions and billions of our tax dollars we pay them.......

Pathetic. I just do not understand how anyone, especially those who truly supports our troops or has military experience, can sit idly by and allow this to happen and NOT blame the President for it.

But it's all about partisanship isn't it? Fuck the troops, fuck what Halliburton is doing.... we can't admit the GOP is wrong and allowing this BS to happen out of greed, now can we?

Of course there's no truth in it, the Dems are just looking for problems..... the company that overcharged the military for fuel, and backlogged necessary materials, would never do such a thing...... right? So there is no need for investigations to se if there is any truth to this at all now is there?

From your freindly neighborhood Bush supporter:

It would be unwise for the current management team at Haliburton to instruct union employees to contaminate the water being sold at inflated prices to the military. If they did give union employees these instructions why hasn't anyone said anything? I assume they did not instruct employees to sell contaiminated water. It is possible there are other explanations, explanations that are not diabolical.

If the system of checks and balances have failed in Washington. The explanation has to be that Congress has failed. Congress controls the money.

There is no doubt that the GOP is greedy. Most people in the republican party will readily admit wanting more than what is needed for survival. I am greedy. I drive a car that can go 155 mph., I have a house with a spare bedroom, I consume more than 2500 calories per day. The more interesting issue is that some people acctually think they are not greedy, or that the democrats are not greedy. I say wow!!!

The point is not to fight greed, but is to understand it. Use it to your advantage. Or, as Yoda would say - Luke, use the force.

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

From your freindly neighborhood Bush supporter:

It would be unwise for the current management team at Haliburton to instruct union employees to contaminate the water being sold at inflated prices to the military. If they did give union employees these instructions why hasn't anyone said anything? I assume they did not instruct employees to sell contaiminated water. It is possible there are other explanations, explanations that are not diabolical.

If the system of checks and balances have failed in Washington. The explanation has to be that Congress has failed. Congress controls the money.

There is no doubt that the GOP is greedy. Most people in the republican party will readily admit wanting more than what is needed for survival. I am greedy. I drive a car that can go 155 mph., I have a house with a spare bedroom, I consume more than 2500 calories per day. The more interesting issue is that some people acctually think they are not greedy, or that the democrats are not greedy. I say wow!!!

The point is not to fight greed, but is to understand it. Use it to your advantage. Or, as Yoda would say - Luke, use the force.

All I am really saying is that the accusations need looked into.

I don't believe they would intentionally contaminate, however, given Halliburton's past, I could see them cutting corners for the money and not doing all they promised to do.

I don't know if the accusations are true or false, but God Damn we owe it to the men and women over there to make sure they aren't and that Halliburton does what it not only promises to do, but what it is paid to do.

I agree EVERYONE is greedy to some degree. But whether pro or con on the war the troops deserve the best.

roachboy · 01-24-2006, 07:39 AM

...or you **might** wonder if privatization of infrastructure functions (water supply) is a good thing or not: this is hardly the first example of a private concern screwing up water--think chile for example (if this is too obscure, i'll find and post a link when i've a bit more time)...think british rail: fact is that the arguments for privatizing infrastructure was floated by the right in the name of efficiency, but that has not panned out at all--so the motive appears to have been different from the outset--minimizing political risk for the state in a contet of heightened uncertainty. in a strange way, ustwo is almost right for once: prvate companies are not accountable for their fuck ups....there is no way to bring pressure to bear on them, not really--so in thsi case, there is little to be done. why is that a good thing?

pan6467 · 01-24-2006, 08:03 AM

When we have allowed private companies to control our water..... we may as well sign our death warrants because their greed will determine who truly gets water and who gets the stuff that isn't drinkable.

I have issues with making the most valuable (based on need and the fact less and less is becoming drinkable) commodity a part of profit to companies.

docbungle · 01-24-2006, 02:24 PM

[QUOTE=pan6467]Let's see...... Cheney ran the company, Bush heavily supports the company and what do they do.....

Overcharged the military on fuel

Back order necessary supplies

And now....... now we don't have to worry about the Iraqis and "insurgents" kiling our own men.... Halliburton will do it for the billions and billions of our tax dollars we pay them.......

Pathetic. I just do not understand how anyone, especially those who truly supports our troops or has military experience, can sit idly by and allow this to happen and NOT blame the President for it.

But it's all about partisanship isn't it? Fuck the troops, fuck what Halliburton is doing.... we can't admit the GOP is wrong and allowing this BS to happen out of greed, now can we?

Of course there's no truth in it, the Dems are just looking for problems..... the company that overcharged the military for fuel, and backlogged necessary materials, would never do such a thing...... right? So there is no need for investigations to se if there is any truth to this at all now is there?[End Quote]

Well ,you've changed your tone a bit from your opening statement. So keep in mind, the opening staement is what I'm replying to here.

You're blaming Haliburton for being accused of something. Being accused of something doesn't mean anything other than that. You seem to make quite a leap by stating that Haliburton is killing our own men for us. And that we are paying them to do it. I definitely do not see the connections you make in these statements.

Also, you jump from that to blaming Bush. What are you blaming him for? For Haliburton being accused? Or for not dropping everything to check on a small water supply that may or may not have been contaminated?

I agree the article is somewhat interesting, but I do not find it worthy of this type of anger.

aceventura3 · 01-24-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

...or you **might** wonder if privatization of infrastructure functions (water supply) is a good thing or not: this is hardly the first example of a private concern screwing up water--think chile for example (if this is too obscure, i'll find and post a link when i've a bit more time)...think british rail: fact is that the arguments for privatizing infrastructure was floated by the right in the name of efficiency, but that has not panned out at all--so the motive appears to have been different from the outset--minimizing political risk for the state in a contet of heightened uncertainty. in a strange way, ustwo is almost right for once: prvate companies are not accountable for their fuck ups....there is no way to bring pressure to bear on them, not really--so in thsi case, there is little to be done. why is that a good thing?

Private companies control electricity. The system works pretty well (At least where I live and have lived).

Screw-ups happen in the private sector but they also occur in the public sector. There will always be some level of corruption when any system is run by people. I don't think we can fairly use a small number of "screw- ups" to say that the private sector is not accountable. I have read about a few corrupt CEO and other business leaders who went to prison for their crimes and fraud. Others have gotten fired. Some companies have gone out of business, some have been fined.

Bussiness leaders who think long-term want to do good work for their customers.

Ustwo · 01-24-2006, 03:01 PM

Hehehe try suing a government 'company' when they screw up.

Post office semi-trailer almost killed my wife and we couldn't touch them.

roachboy · 01-24-2006, 05:46 PM

on the other hand, about five years ago there were scandals in france and in the u.s. almost simultaneously involving AIDS contamination of the blood supply. in france, the scandal brought down the minister of health (control of the blood supply is a public function) and nearly brough the government down along with it. in the states, the red cross controls the blood supply, and the red cross is private. because it is private, there were no political consequences to the contamination.

like it or not, the state makes what it administers political because it is involved with it: it is a public institution--citizens can organize themselves and bring political pressure to bear on it. nothing like that obtains in situations where private companies run the show.

the question was not whether you have an aesthetic preference for public or private, nor was it whether you like the state or not, nor was it provide me arbitrary anecdotes that illustrate a misunderstanding of the point i was making (ustwo). that the fine folk at halliburton saw fit to provide foul water to troops in iraq raises this matter--there is no accountability.

there is more on this, but once again i havent the time to say it.

pan6467 · 01-24-2006, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Well ,you've changed your tone a bit from your opening statement. So keep in mind, the opening staement is what I'm replying to here.

The tone changed because I was hot at first about the charges and while I said that Halliburton should be investigated, I was too passionate and emotional (go figure, me emotional and hot tempered

). Later the tone went down because I did not want to be as confrontational, and make the point better by being more calm and cool.

Quote:

You're blaming Haliburton for being accused of something. Being accused of something doesn't mean anything other than that. You seem to make quite a leap by stating that Haliburton is killing our own men for us. And that we are paying them to do it. I definitely do not see the connections you make in these statements.

Not killing our men but making them sick. And yes, if they have been paid for services and goods one would expect them to maintain those services and goods within the standards they were hired to do.

Somehow, I don't believe we (as we are a government by the people for the people), are paying Halliburton to pump in tainted water that doesn't meet standards.

Nor are we supposed to have to pay them for overcharging on gas or for taking money and not supplying the troops with the goods.

Quote:

Also, you jump from that to blaming Bush. What are you blaming him for? For Haliburton being accused? Or for not dropping everything to check on a small water supply that may or may not have been contaminated?

Because ultimately as commander-in-chief he is responsible.

Quote:

I agree the article is somewhat interesting, but I do not find it worthy of this type of anger.

We disagree here because I have been called all kinds of names and told I cannot support our men if I do not support the war (which is bullshit).

Yet, those who support Bush and the war turn blind eyes, allow this bullshit to go on with Halliburton and refuse to investigate, refuse to take any of it seriously.

Now I ask you, how can you say you support the troops when the company we have hired to supply them and to deliver the goods, hasn't, and you make excuses and turn the blind eye to it all?

Overcharging the military for gas, and yet, everyone from the President down did nothing until the public demanded something be done...... is that not worse than protesting a war?

Being paid for goods to help our soldiers and yet never delivering them, yet the government and Bushies never say a word, don't investigate, don't even take the reports seriously until they had to because of pressure from the people....... is that not worse than protesting the war?

Now having these accusations and people laughing it off, saying it's a political attack and then turning blind eyes maybe allowing it to continue..... is that not worse than protesting the war?

People sit and accuse me for using MY RIGHT to protest and speak out...... they say I am hurting morale........ when all these things that Halliburton has been doing is going unpunished and the GOP simply do not seem to care.

I ask which is worse?

docbungle · 01-25-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Because ultimately as commander-in-chief he is responsible.

I find that statement coming from you just as ridiculous as I do when Bush says it. People who blame Bush for everything are no more convincing than Bush himself saying he can do whatever he wants.

Quote:

We disagree here because I have been called all kinds of names and told I cannot support our men if I do not support the war (which is bullshit).

Yes. I understand. We've all seen quite a bit of that. Actually, this whole "support the troops" phenomenon is just so unrealistic. I mean, how are people supporting the troops? By wishing them well? By saying "I support the troops"? By answering questions properly in USA Today gallop polls? And how are people hurting the troops by neglecting to say "I support the troops"? I will not put on pom-poms and a skirt and jump up and down and cheeer for something I don't agree with. In the same breath, I am not cheering for the death and destruction of America or anyone in it, either.

I'm just done having strong opinions on the matter. Everyone is just so full of hot air.

I'll tell you, I'm apathetic to the whole thing. And knee-jerk reactions to statements like mine by wing-nuts on both sides should make it all the more clear why I feel this way. Being called "unpatriotic" or "patriotic" doesn't make me feel one way or the other. What extremists think of my opinions is of no interest to me.

Quote:

Now I ask you, how can you say you support the troops when the company we have hired to supply them and to deliver the goods, hasn't, and you make excuses and turn the blind eye to it all?

I don't know. What I find sad it that most who find Bush agreeable also find Haliburton agreeable. And most who find Bush not so agreeable also find Haliburton not so agreeable. Which makes the whole topic a wash, as nothing can actually be discussed without people taking their partisan blinders off for a few minutes.

Quote:

Now having these accusations and people laughing it off, saying it's a political attack and then turning blind eyes maybe allowing it to continue..... is that not worse than protesting the war?

I agree it should probably be looked into a bit more. Just because people on this board are laughing it off doesn't mean no one in the real world is paying attention.

Quote:

People sit and accuse me for using MY RIGHT to protest and speak out...... they say I am hurting morale........ when all these things that Halliburton has been doing is going unpunished and the GOP simply do not seem to care.

People say you're hurting morale by speaking your mind. Bush started this whole way of thinking. It's baffling. It's just that they don't know how to change your mind, so they just cut out the argument and paste up the accusation: GUILTY.

And people just eat it up.

[/QUOTE]

pan6467 · 01-25-2006, 10:05 PM

Doc,

You make some good arguments and I appreciate that. However, there is one point I need to clarify because I do feel strongly about this.

You said:

Quote:

I find that statement coming from you just as ridiculous as I do when Bush says it. People who blame Bush for everything are no more convincing than Bush himself saying he can do whatever he wants.

My saying the ultimate responsibility lies with Bush because he is C-I-C, I feel is accurate. it doesn't give him carte blanche. It does in fact, to me at least, mean that in the end as with any CEO he should make sure contracts are fulfilled and the men are taken care of to the best of the country's ability.

This means when Halliburton overcharges for gas, he needs to have reports and explain why to the stockholders (we the people) and to the troops.

This means when Halliburton charges for goods and isn't delivering, he needs to find out why, look into people who will, make changes and report to the stockholders (again, we the people) and the troops.

When the man the company placed in charge of testing water, (William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait) writes a memo saying the water does not meet standards and that it is hazardous...... the president needs to listen and agin find out why and report to the stock holders (we the people) and the troops as to what is going on.

This is not to say Bush needs to drop everything and focus on this one item, but as president he has the resources and can find the unbiased people in the military to do the research and write the reports.

Instead he blows it off, ignores it and when the Dems ask for a simple investigation, the GOP says "NO!".

It shouldn't have to go as far as Congress. The buck should stop with the President and he should take responsibility for what happens.

In the end as I have stated before, a lot can be said about a country in how they treat the military..... and how this administration, that supposedly 100% supports and loves our troops is doing a very extreme shitty job at showing that support and love.

01-23-2006, 10:47 AM	#5 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Let's give this topic appropriate discourse, while keeping the emotionalism to a minimum. It serves no purpose, and pollutes the thread. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

01-24-2006, 07:39 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	...or you might wonder if privatization of infrastructure functions (water supply) is a good thing or not: this is hardly the first example of a private concern screwing up water--think chile for example (if this is too obscure, i'll find and post a link when i've a bit more time)...think british rail: fact is that the arguments for privatizing infrastructure was floated by the right in the name of efficiency, but that has not panned out at all--so the motive appears to have been different from the outset--minimizing political risk for the state in a contet of heightened uncertainty. in a strange way, ustwo is almost right for once: prvate companies are not accountable for their fuck ups....there is no way to bring pressure to bear on them, not really--so in thsi case, there is little to be done. why is that a good thing? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-24-2006, 08:03 AM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	When we have allowed private companies to control our water..... we may as well sign our death warrants because their greed will determine who truly gets water and who gets the stuff that isn't drinkable. I have issues with making the most valuable (based on need and the fact less and less is becoming drinkable) commodity a part of profit to companies. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-24-2006, 02:24 PM	#17 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	[QUOTE=pan6467]Let's see...... Cheney ran the company, Bush heavily supports the company and what do they do..... Overcharged the military on fuel Back order necessary supplies And now....... now we don't have to worry about the Iraqis and "insurgents" kiling our own men.... Halliburton will do it for the billions and billions of our tax dollars we pay them....... Pathetic. I just do not understand how anyone, especially those who truly supports our troops or has military experience, can sit idly by and allow this to happen and NOT blame the President for it. But it's all about partisanship isn't it? Fuck the troops, fuck what Halliburton is doing.... we can't admit the GOP is wrong and allowing this BS to happen out of greed, now can we? Of course there's no truth in it, the Dems are just looking for problems..... the company that overcharged the military for fuel, and backlogged necessary materials, would never do such a thing...... right? So there is no need for investigations to se if there is any truth to this at all now is there?[End Quote] Well ,you've changed your tone a bit from your opening statement. So keep in mind, the opening staement is what I'm replying to here. You're blaming Haliburton for being accused of something. Being accused of something doesn't mean anything other than that. You seem to make quite a leap by stating that Haliburton is killing our own men for us. And that we are paying them to do it. I definitely do not see the connections you make in these statements. Also, you jump from that to blaming Bush. What are you blaming him for? For Haliburton being accused? Or for not dropping everything to check on a small water supply that may or may not have been contaminated? I agree the article is somewhat interesting, but I do not find it worthy of this type of anger. __________________ Bad Luck City Last edited by docbungle; 01-24-2006 at 02:27 PM..

01-24-2006, 03:01 PM	#19 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Hehehe try suing a government 'company' when they screw up. Post office semi-trailer almost killed my wife and we couldn't touch them. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-23-2006, 10:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	maybe Erin Brockovich should look into it...

01-23-2006, 11:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What surprises me the very most, is despite the mountains of bad PR Haliburton has gotten, the investors are still not afraid. This sets a very dangerous prescedent, spanning the entire spectrum of corporations. Even if you get caught, you're probably going to get away with it. Even after Enron, this is allowed to continue. Our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. At the end of the day, we are responsible for watching our government and speaking up and taking action when it does something we disagree with. It is our RIGHT. With global corporations, there are no such checks and balances. This is when the Libertarian in me sits in the back and sucks his thumb. A free market econemy is like a get out of jail free card for those corportations, such as Haliburton, who see fit to do as they please, public good be damned. The problem is that the producer controls the consumer in this disfunctional market relationship. Bush and Cheny, obviously biased, have masive influence over military spending. They also benifit from that spending. Isn't this the kind of conflict of interest that we have laws for? Aren't there laws that prevent this type of arrangement? If not, then we should start a movement in order to kep our econemy free from both tyranical governemnt, AND tyranical corporations. Neither of those entities should go unckecked.

01-24-2006, 05:46 PM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	on the other hand, about five years ago there were scandals in france and in the u.s. almost simultaneously involving AIDS contamination of the blood supply. in france, the scandal brought down the minister of health (control of the blood supply is a public function) and nearly brough the government down along with it. in the states, the red cross controls the blood supply, and the red cross is private. because it is private, there were no political consequences to the contamination. like it or not, the state makes what it administers political because it is involved with it: it is a public institution--citizens can organize themselves and bring political pressure to bear on it. nothing like that obtains in situations where private companies run the show. the question was not whether you have an aesthetic preference for public or private, nor was it whether you like the state or not, nor was it provide me arbitrary anecdotes that illustrate a misunderstanding of the point i was making (ustwo). that the fine folk at halliburton saw fit to provide foul water to troops in iraq raises this matter--there is no accountability. there is more on this, but once again i havent the time to say it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite