Not only that, the government overspends on everything and wastes money on any given program, why should this be any different and why are you not complaining about the "corruption" of say welfare or assisted living or any number of other domestic programs that are leaking money like a sieve?
[...]
You however are jumping to conclusions long before the outcome of said decisions come to maturity
Well, I've already discussed dyncorp multiple times, and there is always halliburton:
Quote:
Iraq:
Quote:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.?_ But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain._ Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and theInternational Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime._ The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I._ Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.?_ Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
And some of the crimes and fines (bold deals with overcharging and crazy accounting):
Quote:
Subverting Democratic Values and the Rule of Law - Criminal Activity
Between 1993 and 1994, Halliburton allegedly shipped Israeli goods illegally to Iran several times between 1993 and 1994._ As a result, the_ the Department of Commerce filed charges against the company._ While under the leadership of Dick Cheney, Halliburton agreed to pay a $15,000 fine for the alleged offense, but refused to admit it had violated any laws._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
In spite of the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1995, Halliburton continued to do business with Iran through its multiple subsidiaries - while Cheney was the CEO. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton had extensive investments and contracts in Indonesia. One of its contracts was canceled by the post-Suharto government during a purging of corruptly awarded contracts._ Indonesia Corruption Watch revealed that Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) was among 59 companies using collusive, corruptive and nepotistic practices involving former President Suharto's family._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Before Cheney, Halliburton was very active in Libya, making $44.7 million there in 1993._ In 1994, as a result of sanctions on Libya their income dropped to $12.4 million. Ignoring the sanctions, Halliburton did business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure. A member of Congress accused Halliburton ?of undermining American foreign policy to the full extent allowed by law.? (Athans and Lolordo 8-16-2000; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_ Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)
The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)
KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___(Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._ (Harnden 5-7-2002)
In May of 2003, Halliburton admitted to having paid $2.4 million to an official posing as a tax consultant in exchange for tax concessions from that country. According to Halliburton, the bribes, which took place between 2001 and 2002, did not involve senior company officers. The SEC is investigating the issue and Halliburton may ultimately be liable for some $5 million in back taxes in Nigeria. [Guardian, 5/9/03; Houston Chronicle,5/8/03]
Disregard for Human Rights.
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton did a significant amount of business with the notorious regime in Burma. An investigation by EarthRights International in 2000 documented Halliburton's complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
All this just from the CCR page where you can get more info on the company:
And we can also see how these private companies influence foriegn policy:
Quote:
Halliburton lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on countries with which it sought to do business.
Even though the nation?s leaders and their friends in the executive suites of the world?s largest multinational corporations blissfully hail the wonders of ?free trade,? all available evidence indicates that one of the real forces behind corporate success is the ability to manipulate the conditions within which the so-called ?free market? operates._ In the case of Halliburton, this reoccurring theme is particularly acute._ While Halliburton opposed the the use of sanctions on some countries, it simultaneously supported imposing sanctions on other countries - depending of course on how the sanctions would effect Halliburton._ This policy of inconsistency demonstrates that the so-called principles of 'free trade' are applied only when it is profitable to do so.
Between 1995 and 2000, Halliburton, under the leadership of former secretary of defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney, successfully lobbied against the imposition of international sanctions against countries with which it wanted to do business._ In most cases these countries were being sanctioned because of serious human rights abuses._ Halliburton, along with a few other companies, attempted to argue that the best way to discourage the violations of human rights was to do business with them, or as they explained it ? ?engage.?_ Here are a few examples of cases where they successfully undermined sanctions.
Dick Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan that were mandated under section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act._ The sanctions were imposed because of concerns about the ethnic cleansing of the Abkhazis._ Cheney claimed the sanctions were the result only of groundless campaigning by the Armenian-American lobby. Then in 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root bid on a major Caspian project from the Azerbaijan International Operating Company._ (Halliburton 8-11-1997; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cohn 8-10-2001)
_It successfully lobbied, through the front organization U.S. Engage, against a 1997 bill intended to impose sanctions against foreign governments that persecute religious groups._(Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
_It supported the overturning of the Massachusetts Burma law that discouraged the state government from awarding contracts to companies doing business in Burma, a country notorious for its repressive government._ Halliburton?s business interests in Burma and their complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations - was documented in a 2000 report by EarthRights International._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in Nigeria. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
As the CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney lobbied relentlessly against the Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1995 and tried to secure Halliburton an exemption._ The oil company was very upset that it was being prevented from participating in the development of Iran's offshore oil fields and it wanted to take an active part in the construction of proposed pipelines that would carry Caspian Sea oil to the Persian Gulf._ He argued that the ?the unintended result of our policy toward Iran is to give Russia more leverage over the independent states of central Asia and the Caucusus by blocking export routes toward the south."_ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
In theory, I shouldn't have any problems with private security companies doing some of the dirty work in Iraq. They are likely better trained and equipped - they are certainly better paid - and the individuals who work for these companies are in a warzone by choice (unlike many of the reservists and national guardsmen).
I do have problems though. To begin with, these companies are not as accountable for their actions as they should be. A warzone is a lawless place and mercenaries do not hold themselves to the same high standards that the US troops do. That's when you end up with situations like the one in Bosnia where thirteen DynCorp operatives were implicated in what amounted to a sex-slave trading operation. None of these operatives ever faced charges in either a court of law or a military court. It is unknown if they were even disciplined internally at DynCorp (although the two DynCorp employees who blew the whistle on the operation ended up being fired).
In addition, these private security companies are expensive. A single Steele Foundation bodyguard can cost upwards of $1,000 a day. And who gets to foot this bill when the US Government is hiring the private security companies? US taxpayers and Iraqis. I'm used to my taxes being spent on things I don't approve of or want, but it really seems like a rough deal for the Iraqis. They were told that their country was being reclaimed for them. They were told that their vast natural resources would be used to rebuild their country and improve their lives. No wonder so many of them are pissed off.
I caught you hook line and sinker. Starting to feel a bit foolish for jumping the gun?? The important word you so kindly decided to ignore was budgeteer a quite party neutral term. I also said liberals, not Dem's as it is a very important distinction that not a Dem's are liberals. Rummy is a consummate budgeteer, he couldn't give a rats about privatization--he wants a legacy--something much more difficult to overcome.
You are close on the Republican ideology of less government is better, but Republicans don't want a mass substitution of government controlled privatization to replace government service providers, that just shifts the name on the payee line of the paycheck. Unfortunately a few early business cases based on small business outsourcing have become a vastly oversold and incorrect model that outsourcing is universally good. Actually it is much closer to universally bad, with the exception being rightfully having its place in smaller businesses and organizations. Take a bad idea, show it to a bureaucrat with a pretty contract and single well selected case study attached and shake. That poor lifer will create a program out of thin air in the quest for the performance evaluation bullet and ever higher GS rating, party and ideology independent--just bad old government at its least flexible. As for outsourcers vacuuming up the $$, it's true unfortunately.
Eisenhower's warning was about something else entirely, once you get past business and military in the same sentence. This outsourcing mess we currently see is a widely ignored artifact of cutting budgets without cutting requirements. Good businesses have taken advantage of the unforeseen or better stated--ignored--lack of government ability to address its own requirements. And offered to fill them for a price. If it was a one time deal it would be a true savings, but it isn't and will cost out the a$$ and create all kinds of heartburn and confusion for many folks for a long time. All that said, Eisenhower probably would have had something to say on the current matter as well and it also would have been a warning.
Sorry, that's not convincing.
The Eisenhower quote is exactly what we are talking about: the marriage between government funding, corporate recipients, the lobbyists, and the resulting dependancy of our economy on the corporate/government entanglement: this is visious circle that then creates a dependancy on further Government/corporate entanglment: hence "The Military Industrial Complex". . . . those interests are as influential in creating this mercenary mess as are Post-cold war Liberals calling for smaller military.
Just because your conservative ideas are not in line with outsourcing and privatization of the military doesn't mean those ideas don't it fits squarely in that camp and in fact arise directly from many Conservative ideological notions . . . where else has it come from?!?
ANd Rummsfeldt might be more interested in appearing like some Hannibalic grand figure of military History (HAA!) but he is part and parcel of an ideological environment that adores just this kind of corporatism and privatization and has been behind the scenes pushing for it for years.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
If you hate the war leader and the reasoning- fine. But it is intellectually lazy (and outrageous) to welcome every piece of bad news, applaud every American death, and then use that bad news to make a your case that blames America first for every wrong in the world. There are a lot of people in general that cannot wait to hear something they can spin negatively about Iraq. If there is a news story about the price of yo-yos on the streets of Baghdad, there are a wad of people who want to know how we can make this the problem of Bush, Haliburton, and America.
It's a circus, driven by hate for one man and what he stands for. If ya hate Bush, fine. But not everything evil in the world is somehow tied to this single man.
That is a good post.
I didn't really know this mercenary issue was such a bad problem! Naples how can you not see "corruption"? You're not by any chance a...Creationist!
Are you saying that Halliburton "accounting error" was an "accident?"
I was addressing the use of taxpayer money to hire privately owned rent-a-thug or mercenary organizations. How does this help the cause of "installing democracy" in Iraq (I know that's never been the mission in Iraq, but the Bush admin keeps saying it is), when the people of Iraq, their customs and traditions are abused to the maximum. According to Bush and Co, Iraq is the centerpiece of the "war on terror", and here he is employing people who are little better than terrorists, some 18,000 of them, on the taxpayer.
I was addressing the use of taxpayer money to hire privately owned rent-a-thug or mercenary organizations. How does this help the cause of "installing democracy" in Iraq (I know that's never been the mission in Iraq, but the Bush admin keeps saying it is), when the people of Iraq, their customs and traditions are abused to the maximum. According to Bush and Co, Iraq is the centerpiece of the "war on terror", and here he is employing people who are little better than terrorists, some 18,000 of them, on the taxpayer.
You approve?
I dismiss your whole premise that these people are thugs and are the equivalent to terrorists.
I also question your motives for the fact that this government and many others employ countless body guards and security personnel. I would bet that your state and city government use these same tactics. A lot of prisons in this country are run by private security companies.
Security is a large and diverse industry that many governments and entities are willing to spend money on.
I am not sure what your issue is on this subject, it may have some valid basis but calling people putting themselves in harms way to protect another or to prevent harm coming to innocents, no better than terrorists is really assuming and arrogant, IMO.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Not only that, the government overspends on everything and wastes money on any given program, why should this be any different and why are you not complaining about the "corruption" of say welfare or assisted living or any number of other domestic programs that are leaking money like a sieve?
[...]
You however are jumping to conclusions long before the outcome of said decisions come to maturity
Well, I've already discussed dyncorp multiple times, and there is always halliburton:
Iraq:
Quote:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.?_ But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain._ Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and theInternational Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime._ The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I._ Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.?_ Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
And some of the crimes and fines (bold deals with overcharging and crazy accounting):
Subverting Democratic Values and the Rule of Law - Criminal Activity
Between 1993 and 1994, Halliburton allegedly shipped Israeli goods illegally to Iran several times between 1993 and 1994._ As a result, the_ the Department of Commerce filed charges against the company._ While under the leadership of Dick Cheney, Halliburton agreed to pay a $15,000 fine for the alleged offense, but refused to admit it had violated any laws._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
In spite of the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1995, Halliburton continued to do business with Iran through its multiple subsidiaries - while Cheney was the CEO. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton had extensive investments and contracts in Indonesia. One of its contracts was canceled by the post-Suharto government during a purging of corruptly awarded contracts._ Indonesia Corruption Watch revealed that Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) was among 59 companies using collusive, corruptive and nepotistic practices involving former President Suharto's family._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Before Cheney, Halliburton was very active in Libya, making $44.7 million there in 1993._ In 1994, as a result of sanctions on Libya their income dropped to $12.4 million. Ignoring the sanctions, Halliburton did business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure. A member of Congress accused Halliburton ?of undermining American foreign policy to the full extent allowed by law.? (Athans and Lolordo 8-16-2000; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_ Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)
The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)
KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___(Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._ (Harnden 5-7-2002)
In May of 2003, Halliburton admitted to having paid $2.4 million to an official posing as a tax consultant in exchange for tax concessions from that country. According to Halliburton, the bribes, which took place between 2001 and 2002, did not involve senior company officers. The SEC is investigating the issue and Halliburton may ultimately be liable for some $5 million in back taxes in Nigeria. [Guardian, 5/9/03; Houston Chronicle,5/8/03]
Disregard for Human Rights.
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton did a significant amount of business with the notorious regime in Burma. An investigation by EarthRights International in 2000 documented Halliburton's complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
All this just from the CCR page where you can get more info on the company:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
Halliburton lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on countries with which it sought to do business.
Even though the nation?s leaders and their friends in the executive suites of the world?s largest multinational corporations blissfully hail the wonders of ?free trade,? all available evidence indicates that one of the real forces behind corporate success is the ability to manipulate the conditions within which the so-called ?free market? operates._ In the case of Halliburton, this reoccurring theme is particularly acute._ While Halliburton opposed the the use of sanctions on some countries, it simultaneously supported imposing sanctions on other countries - depending of course on how the sanctions would effect Halliburton._ This policy of inconsistency demonstrates that the so-called principles of 'free trade' are applied only when it is profitable to do so.
Between 1995 and 2000, Halliburton, under the leadership of former secretary of defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney, successfully lobbied against the imposition of international sanctions against countries with which it wanted to do business._ In most cases these countries were being sanctioned because of serious human rights abuses._ Halliburton, along with a few other companies, attempted to argue that the best way to discourage the violations of human rights was to do business with them, or as they explained it ? ?engage.?_ Here are a few examples of cases where they successfully undermined sanctions.
Dick Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan that were mandated under section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act._ The sanctions were imposed because of concerns about the ethnic cleansing of the Abkhazis._ Cheney claimed the sanctions were the result only of groundless campaigning by the Armenian-American lobby. Then in 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root bid on a major Caspian project from the Azerbaijan International Operating Company._ (Halliburton 8-11-1997; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cohn 8-10-2001)
_It successfully lobbied, through the front organization U.S. Engage, against a 1997 bill intended to impose sanctions against foreign governments that persecute religious groups._(Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
_It supported the overturning of the Massachusetts Burma law that discouraged the state government from awarding contracts to companies doing business in Burma, a country notorious for its repressive government._ Halliburton?s business interests in Burma and their complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations - was documented in a 2000 report by EarthRights International._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in Nigeria. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
As the CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney lobbied relentlessly against the Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1995 and tried to secure Halliburton an exemption._ The oil company was very upset that it was being prevented from participating in the development of Iran's offshore oil fields and it wanted to take an active part in the construction of proposed pipelines that would carry Caspian Sea oil to the Persian Gulf._ He argued that the ?the unintended result of our policy toward Iran is to give Russia more leverage over the independent states of central Asia and the Caucusus by blocking export routes toward the south."_ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Originally posted by Scott
That's so stupid it's not worth replying to. So I'll stop now.
Hey it's happened before. Hint ( Vietnam ).
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
I do have problems though. To begin with, these companies are not as accountable for their actions as they should be. A warzone is a lawless place and mercenaries do not hold themselves to the same high standards that the US troops do. That's when you end up with situations like the one in Bosnia where thirteen DynCorp operatives were implicated in what amounted to a sex-slave trading operation. None of these operatives ever faced charges in either a court of law or a military court. It is unknown if they were even disciplined internally at DynCorp (although the two DynCorp employees who blew the whistle on the operation ended up being fired).
In addition, these private security companies are expensive. A single Steele Foundation bodyguard can cost upwards of $1,000 a day. And who gets to foot this bill when the US Government is hiring the private security companies? US taxpayers and Iraqis. I'm used to my taxes being spent on things I don't approve of or want, but it really seems like a rough deal for the Iraqis. They were told that their country was being reclaimed for them. They were told that their vast natural resources would be used to rebuild their country and improve their lives. No wonder so many of them are pissed off.
Originally posted by AirSluf
I caught you hook line and sinker. Starting to feel a bit foolish for jumping the gun?? The important word you so kindly decided to ignore was budgeteer a quite party neutral term. I also said liberals, not Dem's as it is a very important distinction that not a Dem's are liberals. Rummy is a consummate budgeteer, he couldn't give a rats about privatization--he wants a legacy--something much more difficult to overcome.
You are close on the Republican ideology of less government is better, but Republicans don't want a mass substitution of government controlled privatization to replace government service providers, that just shifts the name on the payee line of the paycheck. Unfortunately a few early business cases based on small business outsourcing have become a vastly oversold and incorrect model that outsourcing is universally good. Actually it is much closer to universally bad, with the exception being rightfully having its place in smaller businesses and organizations. Take a bad idea, show it to a bureaucrat with a pretty contract and single well selected case study attached and shake. That poor lifer will create a program out of thin air in the quest for the performance evaluation bullet and ever higher GS rating, party and ideology independent--just bad old government at its least flexible. As for outsourcers vacuuming up the $$, it's true unfortunately.
Eisenhower's warning was about something else entirely, once you get past business and military in the same sentence. This outsourcing mess we currently see is a widely ignored artifact of cutting budgets without cutting requirements. Good businesses have taken advantage of the unforeseen or better stated--ignored--lack of government ability to address its own requirements. And offered to fill them for a price. If it was a one time deal it would be a true savings, but it isn't and will cost out the a$$ and create all kinds of heartburn and confusion for many folks for a long time. All that said, Eisenhower probably would have had something to say on the current matter as well and it also would have been a warning.
Sorry, that's not convincing.
The Eisenhower quote is exactly what we are talking about: the marriage between government funding, corporate recipients, the lobbyists, and the resulting dependancy of our economy on the corporate/government entanglement: this is visious circle that then creates a dependancy on further Government/corporate entanglment: hence "The Military Industrial Complex". . . . those interests are as influential in creating this mercenary mess as are Post-cold war Liberals calling for smaller military.
Just because your conservative ideas are not in line with outsourcing and privatization of the military doesn't mean those ideas don't it fits squarely in that camp and in fact arise directly from many Conservative ideological notions . . . where else has it come from?!?
ANd Rummsfeldt might be more interested in appearing like some Hannibalic grand figure of military History (HAA!) but he is part and parcel of an ideological environment that adores just this kind of corporatism and privatization and has been behind the scenes pushing for it for years.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
pfflam, You don't read very well, or at best very selectively. You would make an interesting show as a political pundit--fit right in!
yeah, probably.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
If you hate the war leader and the reasoning- fine. But it is intellectually lazy (and outrageous) to welcome every piece of bad news, applaud every American death, and then use that bad news to make a your case that blames America first for every wrong in the world. There are a lot of people in general that cannot wait to hear something they can spin negatively about Iraq. If there is a news story about the price of yo-yos on the streets of Baghdad, there are a wad of people who want to know how we can make this the problem of Bush, Haliburton, and America.
It's a circus, driven by hate for one man and what he stands for. If ya hate Bush, fine. But not everything evil in the world is somehow tied to this single man.
That is a good post.
I didn't really know this mercenary issue was such a bad problem! Naples how can you not see "corruption"? You're not by any chance a...Creationist!
Are you saying that Halliburton "accounting error" was an "accident?"
Originally posted by NaplesX
Is that a stretch or is it just me?
Soldiers can't be guarding banks and escorting people all day. I hear complaining but no new solutions. Typical.
Naples, it sounds as if you approve. Please tell me I am wrong about that.....
Originally posted by sammi jo
Naples, it sounds as if you approve. Please tell me I am wrong about that.....
Approve of what?
people carryingguns?
Hired security?
Soldiers doing what they are good at?
I am not sure what you mean. Clarify.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Approve of what?
people carryingguns?
Hired security?
Soldiers doing what they are good at?
I am not sure what you mean. Clarify.
I was addressing the use of taxpayer money to hire privately owned rent-a-thug or mercenary organizations. How does this help the cause of "installing democracy" in Iraq (I know that's never been the mission in Iraq, but the Bush admin keeps saying it is), when the people of Iraq, their customs and traditions are abused to the maximum. According to Bush and Co, Iraq is the centerpiece of the "war on terror", and here he is employing people who are little better than terrorists, some 18,000 of them, on the taxpayer.
You approve?
Originally posted by sammi jo
I was addressing the use of taxpayer money to hire privately owned rent-a-thug or mercenary organizations. How does this help the cause of "installing democracy" in Iraq (I know that's never been the mission in Iraq, but the Bush admin keeps saying it is), when the people of Iraq, their customs and traditions are abused to the maximum. According to Bush and Co, Iraq is the centerpiece of the "war on terror", and here he is employing people who are little better than terrorists, some 18,000 of them, on the taxpayer.
You approve?
I dismiss your whole premise that these people are thugs and are the equivalent to terrorists.
I also question your motives for the fact that this government and many others employ countless body guards and security personnel. I would bet that your state and city government use these same tactics. A lot of prisons in this country are run by private security companies.
Security is a large and diverse industry that many governments and entities are willing to spend money on.
I am not sure what your issue is on this subject, it may have some valid basis but calling people putting themselves in harms way to protect another or to prevent harm coming to innocents, no better than terrorists is really assuming and arrogant, IMO.