US Army ousts Halliburton, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times
Topic started on 12-7-2006 @ 04:09 PM by AlnilamOmega
What is probably seen as a boon for US Army personnel and a bust for for Halliburton officials, the end result should fall in line with increased optimism on the part of the soldiers and a positive surge in their overall ability to perform a wide variety of tasks. The notorious company, who once had as a CEO a man with a recently purported 12% approval rating, the one and only US Vice-President Dick Cheney, was responsible for a multitude of service contracts, not limited to food and water, but also general construction and other logistical needs.




news.bbc.co.uk
"Halliburton's lucrative logistics contract with the US Army is to come to an end, the military has said. The army said it would seek new bidders for the multi-billion dollar deal to provide support services to US troops around the globe.
The Pentagon's decision was welcomed by Senator Byron Dorgan of the Democratic Party, who said the move had been a long time coming.
"I believe literally hundreds of millions and probably billions of dollars have been wasted," he told the Senate.
Halliburton, once led by US vice president Dick Cheney, has recently come under fire for landing expensive, non-competitive government contracts."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Apparently, a great deal of eyebrow-raising activites was produced by this contracting giant. Probably the most infamous observation was when, somehow, Halliburton was granted a multitude of no-bid and non-competitve contracts to provide services for the soldiers serving in Iraq, along with general construction, utilities, and infrastructure contracts. Another vile offensive came in the guise of inflated prices for services in goods, in which taxpayers' money was abused and misused. This is nothing new, sadly, as several other military contractors have done this in the past to promote money laundering. Finally, probably the least-known yet the most controversial issue behind this ogre, is how the company was very picky on how and what it would provide the very same military support it was contracted for, exorbitant prices nonwithstanding.

Therefore, the fact that the chain of command has finally taken it upon themselves to get rid of such a beast, is indeed a small step towards victory for civilians, enlistedmen, and nonenlistedmen alike. Whether or not the US Army will be able to reject and nullify ALL of Halliburton's contracts, as opposed to just turning the tables on KBR (a subsidiary) remains unclear, however. Still, this seems to be a step in the right direction, as even a small ripple such as this one can eventually form into a trend-changin wave which would spell trouble for Halliburton, but also relief for all those bending over backwards in Iraq.

Please visit the links I have submitted. The first one, arguably the most significant, is a first hand account from a US Serviceman who has had his share of trouble with the industry giant, amongst other operational blunders plaguing our men and women abroad. The second, is in regards to a whistleblower that led to an FBI investigation into Halliburton. The third, which could be considered 'from the horses mouth' itself, is a rather elusive, yet demonstrative, form of confirmation for the first link's story. Scroll down a bit to where it says " Charlie Company 3rd of the 172nd Mountain Infantry", or better yet, skip the majority of the op-ed text, and press control + f, and copy and paste the text I suggested earlier for a quick and easy review.

Related News Links:
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.foxnews.com


[edit on 23-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


reply posted on 23-7-2006 @ 06:26 PM by rich23
I find this discussion interesting for many reasons, the most important of which is that it touches on important right-wing/left wing issues.

In the UK, throughout the eighties, the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher harped constantly on the refrain that there was so much inefficiency in the public sector that the "discipliines of the market" should be brought to bear on it. She was backed in this by a plethora of foreign investors anxious to buy up the about-to-be-privatised public industries.

After twenty years it has been clear that these efficiencies have not materialised and that private corruption and greed is worse on the nation's infrastructure than the admittedly somewhat flabby (but nonetheless well-intentioned - I should know, I worked for one for a while) publicly owned monopolies. Water companies, for example, have consistently failed to meet their targets on replacing leaky pipes, leading to droughts and hugely increased water bills for poor service.

Now I see that people in the US are moving away from the idea that private companies are necessarily the answer...

My whole point was that the military should get back in the business of doing their own work. Screw this outsourcing. We don't need it! The Army, for example, can actually do a much better job of cooking and maintaining all related services much more efficiently and cheaply than any contractor can.


Now I actually agree with the above statement and I believe it's equally true for the provision of electricity and water, and the maintenance of rail networks, in the civilian infrastructure. But don't people realise that this is what is meant by socialism? Are some of the US members starting to lose their faith in capitalism as the absolute panacea?

For the record, I grew up in a mixed economy in which certain basic monopolies such as I have mentioned above were state-owned, and the market took care of the rest. I still think this is a good system but that it has been abandoned for reasons of sheer greed dressed up in a pompous right-wing ideology which has nothing to do with the way things actually work in real life but is designed to sound (to an uncritical ear) like a plausible way to organise one's society.


reply posted on 23-7-2006 @ 09:34 PM by sweatmonicaIdo
EastCoast, it is good to see you again. You need to show up more around here. Your WATS-caliber posting is necessary for this board's survival.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
During the big drawdown of forces after the Gulf War, I was not happy about where that was heading.

I saw it as being very counterproductive on many levels.

It invited outsourcing of military jobs on a vast scale, while eliminating a lot of personnel. Those people were released into the civilian world to mainly join the corporate ranks or the welfare rolls. It was bad business all around (for the military and for the taxpayer).


While you certainly have a point, you have to recall that the U.S. economy was in shambles at the time. The Clinton administration saw an opportunity, and they took advantage of it. While the military did suffer qualitatively, something needed to be axed significantly.


Contrary to conventional wisdom at the time and even now, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not negate the fact that the same threat still existed/s. On the contrary, the same threat still exists, and has been multiplied. Drawing down our forces was bad policy. They should have re-deployed.


I disagree, drawing down was necessary. As the Soviet Union proved, maintaining a modern, high-tech military of such a huge size at an insanely high level of readiness for a long period of time is incredibly difficult. Had the U.S. done the same, we would have run into problems around now, especially considering the economy of the late 1980s.


Our troops in Western Europe should be pared down and re-deployed to bases along our desert southwest. Our troops in S. Korea should be de-activated and re-deployed as well.


I agree with only half of that. We should end forward-deploying of our forces. However, I think we need to bring them home to the U.S. Even if our current presence in Western Europe is a shadow of what it used to be, it is still and unnecessarily high amount and it has to be brought home and compacted to be lighter and faster. We also need to leave Korea. It is not 1985 anymore and South Korea can take on the North if necessary.


Halliburton should not be allowed anywhere near our military. They have not only acted irresponsibly financially, but their presence presents a security threat. It should not be allowed.


War Is Just a Racket.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 19 days ago with 21 member flags
Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 9 days ago with 16 member flags
Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 18 days ago with 8 member flags
Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags