• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq for sale.

F

forfor

Senior member
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2161263857843434134

I knew government contracts were inefficient, excessive, and generally managed poorly but this is ridiculous. I guess my buddy who served in Iraq (2003-2004) was right... "Haliburton owns Iraq. They serve 3 meals a day to soldiers/contractors, they do our laundry, import our water, our GAS, our OIL, they setup barber shops, tailor shops, etc."

:disgust:
 
It's not a sale when the American taxpayer pays (without consent) but only a select few collect the benefits. Most people call that theft or at least fraud.
 
Its at a minimum very fishy when these are no bid contracts----Rush Limbaugh may claim to be on loan from God---Dick Cheney is on rent from Haliburton.
 
Hate to break up the lib love fest, but Halliburton had similar no-bid contracts under Bill Clinton. They are one of the few, if not only, companies that do these types of things.

I am sure the board of Halliburton wished they never mentioned Cheney's name because of all the negative publicity they have received.
 
BS, John. The idea that the military can't drive trucks, cook food, cut hair as it has in previous conflicts is not true.

You commit the fallacy of taking some nugget of truth that there may be *some* things Halliburton is the best choice for, *some* things that Clinton used them for, and then saying that huge contracts with far more are the same. Not the case.

Go watch the whole movie, get informed, and then comment.
 
In the "old days" the military did all the things Halliburton is now doing. But some where along the line it was decided that the military was better off sticking to its base objectives (killing people and breaking things) and letting contractors do the other things. Hence the rise of Halliburton.

I am not sure of when this shift happen, but I think it was between Reagan and Bush 43, may have been Bush 41 or Clinton.

Either way, to assume that every thing Halliburton does is wrong, immoral or illegal because Cheney was once their CEO is really cheap and dishonest.

Al Gore now sits on the board of directors for both Apple and Google, does that now mean we can question everything these two companies do? Apple?s share of the education market went up? must be Al using his influence huh? See? it is just a really weak argument.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
BS, John. The idea that the military can't drive trucks, cook food, cut hair as it has in previous conflicts is not true.

You commit the fallacy of taking some nugget of truth that there may be *some* things Halliburton is the best choice for, *some* things that Clinton used them for, and then saying that huge contracts with far more are the same. Not the case.

Go watch the whole movie, get informed, and then comment.
Click to expand...

Clinton contracted Halliburton to build bases in the balkans, truck in supplies, provide supplies, and logistics. Somehow somewhere the military decided it was cheaper to pay an outside firm to do these things than to have entire units dedicated to the job.

/shrug
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Either way, to assume that every thing Halliburton does is wrong, immoral or illegal because Cheney was once their CEO is really cheap and dishonest.
Click to expand...

What else can you expect from desperate liberals?

It is always hilarious when the MSM does a report on Halliburton. The very first thing they always mention is "Dick Cheney's former company" or "Cheney was former head of Halliburton" before they even get to the story. It is transparent and pathetic.
 
In the "old days" the military did all the things Halliburton is now doing. But some where along the line it was decided that the military was better off sticking to its base objectives (killing people and breaking things) and letting contractors do the other things. Hence the rise of Halliburton.

I am not sure of when this shift happen, but I think it was between Reagan and Bush 43, may have been Bush 41 or Clinton.

Either way, to assume that every thing Halliburton does is wrong, immoral or illegal because Cheney was once their CEO is really cheap and dishonest.

Al Gore now sits on the board of directors for both Apple and Google, does that now mean we can question everything these two companies do? Apple?s share of the education market went up? must be Al using his influence huh? See? it is just a really weak argument.
Click to expand...

The cult is in its usual denial of reality.

Cheney was brought in as CEO of a huge corporation with no *private sector* experience precisely because his government experience would allow them to get a big bite out of the federal taxpayer trough - and he delivered, with Halliburton's government work up hundreds of percent (and Cheney fighitng *against* Iraq sanctions so he could profit).

John, you use innocent phrases for the guilty. It wasn't 'decided it was more efficient somewhere along the way', the above, the revolving door and so on allowed a system of corrupt graft to flourish. The huge deals are unique to Bush 43. Military at $20K/soldier replaced by contracters at $100K; big profits, with cuts back to the republicans.

Since when did war profiteering/price gougin become a partisan issue? Since the right wing became a cult and not a party.

I repeat:

Go watch the whole movie, get informed, and then comment.
Click to expand...

What's so hard about that? The movie is $13 bucks. Want me to buy you a copy?
 
It may be transparent and pathetic---but its also undenialably 100% true-----unlike any contention that Halliburton is 100% honest.

There is much evidence that much of what Halliburtion is now doing involves fraud on a massive scale---what is lacking--under republican
rule are the investigations to ferret out the truth.

I will settle for true anytime Pabster---and supported by facts---not feelings and emotions.

Maybe we can all then apply desperate to mean there are actual criminal charges filed against Haliburton that a prosecutor is prepared to fight for in a court of law---rather than trying too hard to make a desperate emotional appeal not based on fact.
 
Haliburton's primary work is govt, why would they need a CEO who has private sector experience when their biggest customer is public?

 
Although no-bid contracts were not invented by the Bush Regime, they certainly have proliferated and the concept of oversight is an afterthought.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
It may be transparent and pathetic---but its also undenialably 100% true-----unlike any contention that Halliburton is 100% honest.

There is much evidence that much of what Halliburtion is now doing involves fraud on a massive scale---what is lacking--under republican
rule are the investigations to ferret out the truth.

I will settle for true anytime Pabster---and supported by facts---not feelings and emotions.

Maybe we can all then apply desperate to mean there are actual criminal charges filed against Haliburton that a prosecutor is prepared to fight for in a court of law---rather than trying too hard to make a desperate emotional appeal not based on fact.
Click to expand...


They(republican) investigated Haliburton under Clinton for the Balkans budget overruns and they have investigated the billing practices during the current situation.

Haliburton wouldnt even be a big deal if Cheney wasnt a former executive. That shows the raw emotion of the left and how it distorts their entire view on the world.

Haliburton is run through the mud so much by the left as being a profiteer while I dont think they even crack the top 80 defense contractors in terms of size and revenues.

 
It would not be good to look too closely at Halliburton. Just imagine what that would do for the war effort moral if it was discovered to be criminal. People would become even more disillusioned and pissed off and Republicans would pay. A certain level of delusion is necessary to stay the course.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In the "old days" the military did all the things Halliburton is now doing. But some where along the line it was decided that the military was better off sticking to its base objectives (killing people and breaking things) and letting contractors do the other things. Hence the rise of Halliburton.

I am not sure of when this shift happen, but I think it was between Reagan and Bush 43, may have been Bush 41 or Clinton.
Click to expand...

Want to know when it happened? In 1991, Sec of Defense Dick Cheney opened the door to greatly increasing government tax dollars going to private companies by hiring a 'study' of the benefits of doing so to be done by KB&R (Halliburton), who surprisingly conluded that yes, giving them a lot more money was a good thing. This study was the basis for big increaes, a few years before Cheney was hired as their CEO in 1995.

Clarification to my earlier comment, Cheney about doubled the government contract part of their income.

Cheney nearly doubled Halliburton's U.S. government contracts during his five-year tenure, from $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion. Military contracts accounted for a large part of these, undoubtedly aided by the former Pentagon staffers Cheney brought to Halliburton management. One of those was retired four-star Admiral Joe Lopez, who was an aide during Cheney's tenure as defense secretary, came to KBR in 1999 at Cheney's suggestion and became senior vice president of government operations.
Click to expand...

Here's a decent summary of the history:

Link
 
Craig, if what Cheney did was such a bad idea in 1991, then why didn't Clinton change the policy during his 8 years?

Look, I am sure there is waste and perhaps fraud in their contracts, but sadly, there is waste in fraud in nearly all government contracts.

I just object to the idea that people in government are willfully engaging the rape and pillaging of American tax dollars. Mismanagement, yes, willful neglect, no.

Enough on this topic for me. Not going any where. Halliburton will be happy when Cheney is gone and they can go about their business without everyone throwing his name in and attacking them.

BTW: I would bet that there is FAR more waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid and many other government programs for the poor and elderly, and yet we don?t see the constant stream of attacks on these programs that we see on Halliburton and Iraq war spending. Why is that? Could it be that all the attacks like ?Iraq for Sale? are political in nature, and not honest calls for reform to correct governmental problems?

Hey forfor... how did you get to all those countries? Whatcha do for a living?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hate to break up the lib love fest, but Halliburton had similar no-bid contracts under Bill Clinton. They are one of the few, if not only, companies that do these types of things.

I am sure the board of Halliburton wished they never mentioned Cheney's name because of all the negative publicity they have received.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the waste of taxpayer dollars that is going on now?

More bad news: Contractors paid to sit idle. Granted, much of the fault lies with the US government for asking the contractors to fly to Iraq before ordering the start of a project, but that still doesn't explain why KBR's overhead costs are abnormally high.

I think it's highly likely that Haliburton is fracking the American taxpayer up the a$$.
 
Gee you guys on the left who enjoy big govt are now realizing big govt equals waste and corruption?
Click to expand...

We on the left don't oversimplify issues the way you on the right do.

Like, is a gun good or evil? Depends who it's shooting and why, doesn't it? Government spending can be very good or very bad.

Are we talking LBJ passing Medicare - or Bush passing the biggest medicare increase since, where many citiens were actually hurt by the program but it paid off drug companies?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Gee you guys on the left who enjoy big govt are now realizing big govt equals waste and corruption?
Click to expand...

We on the left don't oversimplify issues the way you on the right do.

Like, is a gun good or evil? Depends who it's shooting and why, doesn't it? Government spending can be very good or very bad. The former usually with democrats, the latter usually with republicans.
Click to expand...

Of course, all democratic legislation never has waste or corruption tacked into it.
Nothing like speaking to the blind, so easily lead.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top