TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer)
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by AnotherWay83 but the british wanna give it back to the Iraqis |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Well of course the companies are doing it for the money!! They wouldn't be in business for very long otherwise! It's not like the Iraqi people are paying for all of this, it's all coming out of the 2.4 billion dollar reconstruction package going to Iraq to rebuild its infrastructure. And Az yes at a hefty profit for the company but at a great deal of cost to the government! |
It's nice when conspiracy theories don't pan out ...
http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsA...storyID=2469627
| quote: |
Halliburton Out of Race for Iraq Deal Fri March 28, 2003 07:32 PM ET By Jonathan Wright WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Energy and construction company Halliburton Co. HAL.N is out of the running for a massive U.S. government contract for reconstruction in Iraq, the Agency for International Development (AID) said on Friday. AID official Timothy Beans told Newsweek magazine that Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was not one of the two finalists short-listed for the contract. "I can confirm the information that the director of our procurement office (Beans) shared with Newsweek," said AID spokeswoman Ellen Yount. Halliburton is the second-largest oilfield services firm in the world. The contract, which AID is expected to award within days, is expected to be worth up to $600 million and it covers repairing Iraqi health services, ports and airports, and schools and other educational institutions, an official said. "There has been no final decision made on who will be awarded the capital construction contract," Yount added. Halliburton was one of five companies invited to bid for the contract under an expedited procurement process which was restricted to companies with security clearances. The other companies were Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp. FLR.N , Parsons Corp. and Louis Berger Group Inc. Newsweek said it was not clear if Halliburton removed itself from the running, was asked by the Bush administration to do so or if its bid was not considered competitive. But it quoted Beans as saying: "If I got a phone call from anybody putting any political pressure on me, I would report it immediately to Natsios, as I've been instructed to do." A Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root, also known as KBR, said on Monday it had won a U.S. government contract to assess and extinguish oil well fires in Iraq. Halliburton has a long history of involvement in military logistical support for the U.S. government. A U.S. lawmaker wrote to the military on Wednesday asking why it had awarded the contract to KBR. In a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, sought details of the wartime contract, and inquired why the administration had not allowed other companies to bid on it. The restricted invitations to bid for the Iraqi contractors has also angered foreign companies, although the money will come from U.S. taxpayers, not from any Iraqi source. |
halliburton is still making a good amount of money from the war, heres how:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15445
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/n.../rtr900049.html
| quote: |
| Originally posted by AnotherWay83 damn the article was even in cnn and the nytimes...cant locate it now...basically the company had been given the contract to i think rebuild and then control the port at Umm Qasr...but the british wanna give it back to the Iraqis |
Here's another interesting thing:
There's an initiative in the american congress that when developing post-war cellular networks in Iraq, only american technologies should be taken into account. So instead of the globally popular european GSM standard, which is also used by all of the Iraqi neighbours, Iraq should only be allowed to use the american CDMA technologies.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Here's another interesting thing: There's an initiative in the american congress that when developing post-war cellular networks in Iraq, only american technologies should be taken into account. So instead of the globally popular european GSM standard, which is also used by all of the Iraqi neighbours, Iraq should only be allowed to use the american CDMA technologies. |
Halliburton out because of interest conflicts that may arise for Bush.
^^^^
They could still get a sub-contract though
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JudgeJulez ^^^^ They could still get a sub-contract though |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Here's another interesting thing: There's an initiative in the american congress that when developing post-war cellular networks in Iraq, only american technologies should be taken into account. So instead of the globally popular european GSM standard, which is also used by all of the Iraqi neighbours, Iraq should only be allowed to use the american CDMA technologies. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Umm perhaps the gain the right from the fact that they are paying 100% for the contracts to be completed? NOOOO that couldn't be it nevermind. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JudgeJulez ^^^^ They could still get a sub-contract though |
***UPDATE***
Details Given on Contract Halliburton Was Awarded
By ELIZABETH BECKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/b...&partner=GOOGLE
ASHINGTON, April 10 � The Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil well fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years, according to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that was released today.
The contract also allows Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to earn as much as 7 percent profit. That could amount to $490 million.
The corps released these new details in a letter to Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and one of the two senior lawmakers who asked the General Accounting Office to investigate how the Bush administration is awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
The reconstruction effort could cost up to $100 billion and become one of the most lucrative building programs in decades.
The contract to Kellogg Brown & Root was cited in the lawmakers' request to the G.A.O., the investigative arm of Congress. Mr. Waxman and Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, asked that special attention be paid to "allegations that Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration."
Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 until 2000. When he left the company to run for vice president, Mr. Cheney received over $30 million in compensation, Mr. Waxman said.
...Click Link for Full Article
mmmmm just as thought I guess.
people need to understand what drives american politicians and the american government in general.......... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ but what do you expect when it costs millions of dollars to be elected to a high public office in the states? american democracy=plutocracy
First, Haliburton's subsidiary received the government contract with virtually no competition and now their role has been expanded (i.e. more $$$$$ for Haliburton) to include "operating facilities and distributing products." Haliburton states that this provision for expansion was always in the original contract, only it was in the fine print and ulitimately never reported. Makes me think of what else ends up in the fine print? So what does this mean? Well, it's looking more and more like the oil "that belongs to the Iraqi people" is going into the hands of big corporations; and on top of that, a corporation that has close ties to vice president Cheney. 
***UPDATE***
Halliburton Iraq contract expands
Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Posted: 0640 GMT ( 2:40 PM HKT)
excerpts:
In a letter to Waxman dated May 2, Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, gave further details about what the contract entails: that the company would put out oil well fires and assess the facilities; clean up oil spills or other environmental dangers at the sites; repair or reconstruct damaged infrastructure; operate facilities and distribute products.
Flowers did not elaborate on what he meant by "operation of facilities and distribution of products." The White House has long said the oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINES...top.haliburton/
Here are some links to related stories:
Waxman Halliburton Chronology:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inv...n_contracts.htm
Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor -
Bush deputy gets up to $1m from firm with Iraq oil deal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,912515,00.html
More on Cheney at:
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lfairba...htm#Dick_Cheney
Links on Halliburton in Iraq:
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lfairba...porate.htm#Iraq
Also see Halliburton - Military Contracts:
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lfairba...itary_Contracts
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior Here are some links to related stories: Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor - Bush deputy gets up to $1m from firm with Iraq oil deal http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,912515,00.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus The way you and the article phrase this is misleading. As it has been mentioned (I think in this thread) Cheney does not work anymore or gets "paid" by Haliburton!!! If he does this would be a very controversial issues, and illegal none the less violating rules against conflict of interests! |
- I know for sure that by heaving this contract be done on close doors and heaving Cheney in relation with Halliburton, has lots to say, really, why close doors and why all the secret? gives everyone the question mark.. but why be surprised, it was known that the administration were running the OIL from the Oval Office.
This whole stink arises from questions on our true intentions of going to war in Iraq. The line Bush Co. first used was they had WMD and pose an immediate threat to the U.S. Well, they scrapped that one early on, and replaced it with freeing the Iraqi people from a mean dictator - one who some of our own companies and their respective subsidiaries have done business with very recently (Halliburton). And one dictator who with one particular company, Bechtel, really wanted to do business with back in the '80s to set up an oil pipeline through Iraq. And Rumsfield along with others in Bush Co. had some nice ties to that company (Bechtel) as well. Nevermind the fact that we were well aware of Hussein gassing his own people, we wanted his business! But he turned them down, and they weren't exactly happy with him on his lack of business dealings with U.S. companies. I'm getting off course here. But I've got references if you want me to post them on this.
So anyway, Bush Co. went about it as freeing the Iraqi people. Nevermind how many other ruthless dictators are out there, some from which we are doing business with. But this one with Iraq was oh so bad, I guess. So now we're not here for WMD, even though we're still searching for them after it's all said and done. Of course, we refuse to let U.N. inspectors have a peak around (gee, I wonder why?). Still nothing found, and now Bush Co. freely admits that it's likely we may never find them! So we went to war for what? We went to the U.N. with evidence (laughable, tampered, dated, misconstrued evidence at that) of WMD in Iraq, and used that as our sole reason for invasion. Now we're working on freeing the people! I'm sure they're so glad to be free now - it certainly looks like it, considering they're all starving with no economy whatsoever. Kinda like Afghanistan, only without the Warlords and opium/heroin controlling the economy.
So despite all this, people are beginning to wonder WTF we were there in the first place. What was our intentions? Well many have been accusing Bush Co. on his intentions being oil, and that he refuses to admit it. Of course he would refuse to admit that - you realize how incredibly greedy and malicious this would look if Bush Co. admitted invading a hapless country with a mean dictator who has a laughable army and puny weapons, all for oil?!? Yeah, right. You have to wonder why when we took over Bagdhad, the first place we secured was the Ministry of Oil. It's highly probable that they were securing those documents that linked business deals of Halliburton to Iraq, especially those documents that were dated around the time when Cheney was still on their payroll. Nevermind all the looting in the other buildings, including Iraq's museums and so forth. So people are putting some pieces together, and have concluded that Bush Co. has some serious associations with companies that have contracts to rebuild and restructure Iraq. This good 'ol boy network is becoming exposed for what they're true intentions were in the first place, and it's only going to get worse for them in the long run. It is well-known that Bush has failed in every business he has been in the past. His miserable legacy as President will top them all.
I thought THIS might interest you...
Yahoo! News: "Halliburton admits to multi-million dollar bribe"
Oil services giant Halliburton, already under fire over accusations that its White house ties helped win a major Iraqi oil contract, has admitted that a subsidiary paid a multi-million dollar bribe to a Nigerian tax official. Halliburton, once run by Vice President Richard Cheney, revealed the illicit payments, worth 2.4 million dollars, in a filing Thursday with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). "The payments were made to obtain favorable tax treatment and clearly violated our code of business conduct and our internal control procedures," Halliburton said. ...
Defending Liberty in a Global Economy
Delivered at the Collateral Damage Conference,
Cato Institute June 23, 1998
Richard B. Cheney
An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources. Iran is not punished by this decision. There are numerous oil and gas development companies from other countries that are now aggressively pursuing opportunities to develop those resources. That development will proceed, but it will happen without American participation. The most striking result of the government�s use of unilateral sanctions in the region is that only American companies are prohibited from operating there.
Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions. Our friends in the region cited a number of reasons for not complying with our request. They were concerned with the fragile nature of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which was stalled. But they also had fundamental concerns about our policy toward Iran. We had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise, and that they should not do.
So, what effect does this have on our standing in the region? I take note of the fact that all of the Arab countries we approached, with the single exception of Kuwait, rejected our request to base forces on their soil in the event military action was required against Iraq. As if that weren�t enough, most of them boycotted the economic conference that the United States supported in connection with the peace process that was hosted in Qatar during that period of time. Then, having rejected participation in that conference, they all went to Tehran and attended the Islamic summit hosted by the Iranians. The nation that's isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgement of U.S. policy in the area.
This is also an excerpt from the Cato book, Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty.
http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-dc062398.html
Maybe if they tried putting themselves in the other persons shoes they could gain some sort of understanding.
This shit sounds a bit too much like imperialism to me.
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
No, really, it's not about the oil!
Today the Subcommittee examines the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. The five countries which make up Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, attained their independence in 1991, and have once again captured worldwide attention due to the phenomenal reserves of oil and natural gas located in the region. In their desire for political stability as well as economic independence and prosperity, these nations are anxious to establish relations with the United States.
Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee.../hfa48119_0.htm
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.