GOD BLESS CHENEY....whaddaguy.

[NYerRoman]

The Economist, March 22, 2003
page59

"It was an inevitable conspiracy theory du jour if the war goes well, the real winner will be Vice-President **** Cheney's former film, Halliburton, and other Bush administration cronies. Newspapers have reported that Halliburton has secretly won gigantic contracts for work in a post-war Iraq and that were America to run Iraq, more deals would follow.

The Bush administration has been keeping mum about such matters: Discussing victory plans before the shooting had even begun would be widely viewed as unforgivable hubris..."

Given the particular sensitivity of Halliburton, what can the Bush administration do to allay auspicions of cronyism? The White House has already been burnt once when, last year, it appeared to defend questionable accounting practices at Halliburton during Mr Cheney's tenure which are now under formal investigation."

...there will be no better qualified firm for many of the jobs that will need to be done."
......

Kellog Brown & Root (division of Halliburton) built the detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to hold suspected terrorists, and has men on the ground in Afghanistan and even Kuwait."


NOOOO. IT'S NOT ABOUT CORPORATIONS AND OIL...NOOOO.

[Fred Sanford]

somebody has to build this stuff and rebuild iraq. you have any companies in mind that could do a better job? If not stop whining like a little f@ggot. (I know it's an ad hominem attack, but please this guy is lame.)

[joedoe]

Does the US govt have a tender system? If so, were these jobs put up to tender or were they just handed to the companies in question?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
somebody has to build this stuff and rebuild iraq. you have any companies in mind that could do a better job?

Let's put out an international tender for those jobs and choose the best ones to re-build iraq.

But I doubt that this would happen under the current situation.

Seeya.

[Fred Sanford]

first of all Guantanamo Bay is a US Naval Base. They ain't going to bring in international companies to build there. It's going to be a US govt. contractor.

As for the rest, I don't think anything has been decided yet. I thought the UN was going to be involved in rebuilding Iraq.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
As for the rest, I don't think anything has been decided yet. I thought the UN was going to be involved in rebuilding Iraq.

This is THE sticky point at the moment.

The USA attacked without UN support, but expects UN support to rebuild Iraq.

I don't think that this idea is going down well at the moment, actually russia already said they will veto ANY attempt by the usa to get retro-active approval of the war or trying to get support for re-building Iraq.

Why should the UN spend money to rebuild a country after a war that it never approved of or sanctioned??

[Fred Sanford]

Why should the UN spend money to rebuild a country after a war that it never approved of or sanctioned??

but then people like nyerromeo will whine when US companies go in and get paid to rebuild the country.

the companies who go in there will make money so if the UN gives no support I'd imagine most of the companies going into Iraq will be US and British companies.

[Laughing Cow]

Fred.

Agreed.
If you act unilateral you need to take the good with the bad.
;)

Actually there will be some international companies involved, especially the companies that already got investments in Iraq.

But I guess it will also fall onto the interim goverment, more than on the UN.

Either way some UN agencies will provide humanitarion aid and similar.

Seeya.

[Waidan]

That seemed like a very objective and well thought out source there. Good work. "Cronyism", lolz.



LC
"Why should the UN spend money to rebuild a country after a war that it never approved of or sanctioned??"

You are forgetting, the U.S. are the ones interested in money (or "bling bling" as our executive department refers to it), the U.N. is driven by purely by the pious, altruistic nature of its members.

[Laughing Cow]

Waidan.

Explain to me how the UN could possible make money or even a profit??

I still think many people here don't understand how the UN actually works or how it is composed.

Seeya.

[Waidan]

They couldn't make money (I wasn't being very clear, admittedly) but rather, they'd be avoiding spending. It would be difficult for some UN members to point fingers and claim the U.S. is financially motivated, if they are unwilling to pony up some franks to help a people (who they claim to care a great deal about) recover post-war. From the way France and others have condemned the U.S. for their warmongering, you'd think they'd be leading the charge on humanitarian and rebuilding efforts, not looking to dodge any costs because the damage wasn't "their fault".

I do understand how the UN is comprised and operated, I just should have taken more time to explain my comment.

[Laughing Cow]

Waidan.

Not a problem, we are on the same page.
I think the UN will help as much as they can, if not than their member states will help under the covers.

But again as with all UN decisions it will depend on majority approval and similar.

Japan already promised aid to 2 countries that might be affected by the Iraq War.

[@PLUGO]

Isn't Halliburton still paying d!ck some ungodly amount of Money?

One would figure they would expect something out of it.

[NYerRoman]

Fred Sanford...you call people ***g@ts b/c he making a point that the whole Iraqi thing is serving still the people in power and has nothing to do with "liberating the Iraqi people."

This is serving those in power or those who know those in power. You're tax money is going to rebuild Iraq, but you're not going to profit on it.

Well...you are from Utah and you probably have sex issues to deal with and stuff. Don't call people that b/c I think sexuality has...oh...NOTHING to do with the issue.

You are so 70s. Get a life.

For the rest of you:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/889543_asp.htm?vts=032520030110

[Mr Punch]

God (http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/profile_pug.htm)
forbid (http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/halliburton.htm)
saying (http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/mpri.htm)
there's (http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/trw.htm)
any (http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/UnitedDefense.htm)
global (http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia19.htm)
conspiracy...! (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,427948,00.html)

:rolleyes:I'm afraid it's far more local than that...:eek:

My apologies to anyone who disputes any of the info from these articles... for various reasons, I haven't been able to personally verify any of the information.:rolleyes: :D

...but for those who wanna believe, you might wanna pay special attention to the sections on

1) campaign contributions to both the Democrats and the Republicans, especially to members of the Bush Admin, by individual shareholders and by the companies themselves;

2) the yearly revenue of these companies;

3) how much of that is from contracts with which departments of the US govt;

4) how much these companies get in federal aid and subsidies...

5) the percentage of soldiers... sorry, company employees, who are fighting alongside the poor dumb mugs who signed up cos they believed they'd be fighting for freedom;

6) etc! :D

Please note that DynCorp (http://dyncorp.com/) are merely 'one of the world's leading IT services companies' and are therefore nothing to be worried about... but you may want to check up the above sites from a public computer, with no hotmail pages or anything traceable to yourself open at the same time... like your name (DOH!) eek: :D

If I don't ever write again... it's not because I don't love you guys!
:( :eek: :D

I'm so glad the US govt is so altruistic as to be rescuing the Iraqi people from that nasty Mr Hussein and his WMsD.

[Merryprankster]

Bad logic. Just bad bad bad.

If this were ALL about oil conspiracy, I should think Nigeria would make a more attractive place to send our troops under the guise of peace keeping, don't you?

Hmmmm--Invade a nation that sparks huge protests around the world and engender hate and discontent while losing some british and american lives, OR send troops for "peace keeping," in ethnically torn Nigeria--an action that I think would be far easier to get UN approval on, then invading Iraq.

Or are you all unaware of how much vested interest the U.S. oil industry has in Nigeria? And how incredibly GREAT Nigeria's oil IS--almost all of it is light sweet crude--little refinement necessary and no steam or chemical cracking required.

No, no--it's MUCH better for us to go charging into Iraq and **** off the rest of the world, than the politically "popular preserve "human rights," in Nigeria if this is all about oil, don't you think?

Or have I gone and made too much **** sense again?

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Bad logic. Just bad bad bad.

If this were ALL about oil conspiracy...Or have I gone and made too much **** sense again?

Nope, not this time mate. Nobody mentioned oil.

I'm talking about the private defence industry itself.

Sorry.:rolleyes:

And I have no proof of course!:rolleyes: :D

[Merryprankster]

Nah nah, not you. The original link :D

[Merryprankster]

As someone who works at Halliburton, let me just say that Cheney has been sending work this way since he got in office. Who do you think was on his "energy council" board?

I don't doubt this. If we'd gone to Nigeria, he'd send it their way too. Same-same :D

[Kuen]

Or are you all unaware of how much vested interest the U.S. oil industry has in Nigeria? And how incredibly GREAT Nigeria's oil IS--almost all of it is light sweet crude--little refinement necessary and no steam or chemical cracking required.

You might want to do a little research on that claim. The vast majority of Nigeria's oil is controlled by the Dutch who have been murdering and oppressing the Nigerian's for quite sometime. Teh Nigerian's not wanting to be slaves in their own country have understandably begun to fight back. Recently, the widows of the "conscripted employees" have begun to fight back as well, forcing many companies out. You picked a really poor example. One that shows the moral bankruptcy behind the oil bidness...and we don't need to attack Nigeria. The multi nationals have that particular military dictator on the pay roll.

More Links Here (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=nigerian+oil&hc=2&hs=1)

[Merryprankster]

Hmm...nope, don't think I screwed up here. This is the DOE's analysis which CLEARLY shows how heavily the U.S. is vested in Nigeria. Why go to Iraq if we are vested in Nigeria already and ethnic tension is keeping us from our oil?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nigeria.html

Another on the human rights violations...A bit dated, but worthwhile.

http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/corporations/nige-update.htm

And another general one about oil in Nigeria in general.

http://www.nigeriatoday.com/nigeria_oil.htm

It's my understanding that the Dutch own 40% of NNPC.

Let me reiterate my point. I am not claiming that the oil industry is pure and clean. I'M saying that the U.S. has a vested interest in Nigerian oil--far greater than what is in Iraq. I'm also suggesting that it would be FAR EASIER for us to play the "happy human rights issue," than the "big bad terrorist issue." I don't care if the Nigerian government is corrupt--I also don't care if that dictator is in the multi-national's pockets because it's not working--they might pay him to maintain stability, but he ain't doing it. Why not get the U.S. on the case? Ethnic strife is great excuse to go rescue U.S. VESTED interests.

If all this stuff were REALLY all about oil, why not Nigeria? It's a politically more simple target--Ensure regional stability, get ChevronTexaco profits!

[jun_erh]

this war is about iraq and hussein not Bush. What difference does it make who's there? Even if they have the most base reason

A bum doesn't care who gives him a dollar