0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 11:11 am
Bollocks, the message was for public consumption.

Premature and unwarranted triumphalism.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 11:15 am
"Is any country allowed to arrest military troops that are in their country if they break the laws of the country they stay in?"

some might argue that they are there illegally in the first place.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 11:30 am
McTag wrote:
Bollocks, the message was for public consumption.

Premature and unwarranted triumphalism.
Crying or Very sad
Your hypotheses absent examples and/or supporting evidence are duly noted and expected.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 12:29 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"Is any country allowed to arrest military troops that are in their country if they break the laws of the country they stay in?"

some might argue that they are there illegally in the first place.


I know but so far the Iraqi government, such as it is, is not asking coalition forces to leave. I wonder if this incident will prod them into it? Maybe if they start having huge undeniable (even by ours and the British administration) protest march to get the coalition forces to go home, the Iraqi government will have to ask them to leave. Then the question will be, will we leave. I hope so.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 04:56 pm
Will we leave?

Yes, when a stable and secure Iraqi government does exactly what we want over oil.

When will that be? Not for a long time. If we left now, the Iraqi government we installed would last for somewhere between a month and a day.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 05:02 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Will we leave?

Yes, when a stable and secure Iraqi government does exactly what we want over oil.

When will that be? Not for a long time. If we left now, the Iraqi government we installed would last for somewhere between a month and a day.


What is it exactly we want the Iraqi government to do exactly over oil?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 05:14 pm
pump it in an ever increasing volume and sell it in dollars.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 05:36 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
pump it in an ever increasing volume and sell it in dollars.
Laughing

So you think that until we get the Iraqi government to agree to that, we're going to stay in Iraq. Laughing

Priceless! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 03:43 am
Ican your logic is totally beyond me.

I've always said the root motivation for the invasion of Iraq was oil. Even you must realise the truth of that by now.

What infuriates me is that the United States and Britain have gone about the whole adventure in such a naive, incompetent and self-serving manner that we, and I mean specifically you, have created a situation that has jeopardised oil supplies, failed to install democracy in the middle east and made terrorism much worse here and catastrophic there.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 06:19 am
I thought the British soldiers were arrested in a road block and was shooting or some such?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/international/middleeast/21iraq.html

Quote:
In a statement on Tuesday, the commander of the British 12th Mechanized Brigade in Basra, Brig. John Lorimer, said the Iraqi interior minister had personally ordered the release of the British soldiers on Monday but that his order "seems to have been ignored."

However, Haidar al-Ebadi, spokesman for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said the police had been right to arrest the soldiers and denied that the Interior Ministry had ordered their release. The soldiers were arrested, he added, because they "had been acting suspiciously in civilian clothes without adequate papers."

"For two guys to be collecting information in civilian clothes in the current tense situation in Iraq and in Basra, the reaction of the Iraqi police is understandable," he said. "It was a very unfortunate development that British soldiers should try to release their soldiers the way it happened."

Hours after those comments, Mr. Jaafari's office issued a statement saying there was no "crisis" between Iraq and the British military.

Reuters reported that video of the soldiers taken while they were in jail showed them "unshaven and looking nervous as police looked over wigs, Arab headdresses, antitank missiles and electronic equipment, all apparently used in their mission."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 06:22 am
The independent tells a far different story...


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article313847.ece

Quote:
Under fire: British soldiers attacked in Basra
Army used tanks and helicopters to storm jail and free captured troops, say Iraqis

By Terri Judd and Colin Brown
Published: 20 September 2005
British troops were struggling to maintain control in Basra last night after the city exploded into bloody violence following the alleged killing of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier.

Two British servicemen, dressed in civilian clothes, were held at Basra's main police station after the incident. Outside, rioting began as the city threatened to descend into anarchy.

Last night, British forces used up to 10 tanks - supported by helicopters - to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen. John Reid, the Defence Secretary, later confirmed they were back with UK forces.

Around 150 prisoners were said to have escaped during the assault, which was condemned as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" by Mohammed al-Waili, the provincial governor. But the Ministry of Defence disputed the claim, saying that the release of the soldiers had been "negotiated".

British troops had surrounded the police station after the soldiers, alleged to be undercover commandos, had been arrested for failing to stop at an Iraqi police checkpoint, according to one report. Within minutes an angry crowd gathered and troops had to flee from blazing Warrior vehicles when the mob threw petrol bombs. A soldier could be seen scrambling for his life from a burning vehicle. The MoD said three British soldiers were injured.

The anarchy that the arrests provoked provided the most graphic example yet that the British-patrolled southern sector of Iraq is descending into turmoil after a period of relative calm. Two Iraqis were said to have died in the violence and 15 were injured.

A senior army official denied that the situation was chaotic, insisting that yesterday's events were just a "bump in the road". But the images of street warfare prompted senior politicians to renew pressure on Tony Blair to pull British troops out of Iraq.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "If these events reflect a breakdown in the relationship between the civilian authorities and the British military, then they are very worrying indeed. These events underline the need for a coherent exit strategy of British forces from Iraq."

Military insiders said that the rioting had nothing to do with the two servicemen but was fuelled by the arrests by British forces of members of the Army of Mehdi, the insurgent force headed by the radical Shia cleric Muqtadaal-Sadr, after the recent attacks on British forces. The arrested men included Sheikh Ahmad Majid al-Fartusi, the Basra area commander, and his aide Sajjat al-Basri. Some 200 members of the group staged a show of force on Sunday, blocking roads in the city centre and demanding their release.

British forces have refused to release the detainees, insisting that the Iraqi police service had been prevented from bringing them to justice by "people who clearly oppose law and order".

The local police force has long been rumoured to have been infiltrated by members of the militia. There have been repeated protests in Basra over the past few weeks against the British presence, but one official admitted: "We have seen nothing on this scale."

A senior military figure said: "We need to keep a sense of perspective. There has been an increased attempt by them to disturb things ahead of [the constitutional referendum on] 15 October. Where is the surprise in that? We have responded by arresting some of their people.

"There has been a bit of a backlash, which we are more than capable of handling. Basra is not descending into chaos. Five, six or 10 petrol bombs does not a crisis make. It is just a road bump."

Mr Blair, who spent last night at Chequers, was kept informed about events. There are growing concerns within the Government that Britain is being sucked into its own Vietnam.

Calling for Mr Blair to set an exit date, Labour MPs said the scenes from Basra had echoes of the killing of two British soldiers who were murdered by a mob in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after driving into a republican funeral cortège in March 1988.

Clare Short, the former international development secretary, who resigned over the war, said: "We should negotiate an end to the occupation. They are all saying 'no' because it's such a mess we cannot leave now. But the occupation is the major problem now.

But Mr Reid said: "We remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security. The situation in Basra is calmer after a day of disturbances. At this stage it is not possible to be certain why these disturbances began. Many of those present were clearly prepared well in advance to cause trouble."

Asked about how the men were freed, an MoD spokesman said: "We have not had confirmation of the full details of this."

British troops were struggling to maintain control in Basra last night after the city exploded into bloody violence following the alleged killing of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier.

Two British servicemen, dressed in civilian clothes, were held at Basra's main police station after the incident. Outside, rioting began as the city threatened to descend into anarchy.

Last night, British forces used up to 10 tanks - supported by helicopters - to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen. John Reid, the Defence Secretary, later confirmed they were back with UK forces.

Around 150 prisoners were said to have escaped during the assault, which was condemned as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" by Mohammed al-Waili, the provincial governor. But the Ministry of Defence disputed the claim, saying that the release of the soldiers had been "negotiated".

British troops had surrounded the police station after the soldiers, alleged to be undercover commandos, had been arrested for failing to stop at an Iraqi police checkpoint, according to one report. Within minutes an angry crowd gathered and troops had to flee from blazing Warrior vehicles when the mob threw petrol bombs. A soldier could be seen scrambling for his life from a burning vehicle. The MoD said three British soldiers were injured.

The anarchy that the arrests provoked provided the most graphic example yet that the British-patrolled southern sector of Iraq is descending into turmoil after a period of relative calm. Two Iraqis were said to have died in the violence and 15 were injured.

A senior army official denied that the situation was chaotic, insisting that yesterday's events were just a "bump in the road". But the images of street warfare prompted senior politicians to renew pressure on Tony Blair to pull British troops out of Iraq.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "If these events reflect a breakdown in the relationship between the civilian authorities and the British military, then they are very worrying indeed. These events underline the need for a coherent exit strategy of British forces from Iraq."

Military insiders said that the rioting had nothing to do with the two servicemen but was fuelled by the arrests by British forces of members of the Army of Mehdi, the insurgent force headed by the radical Shia cleric Muqtadaal-Sadr, after the recent attacks on British forces. The arrested men included Sheikh Ahmad Majid al-Fartusi, the Basra area commander, and his aide Sajjat al-Basri. Some 200 members of the group staged a show of force on Sunday, blocking roads in the city centre and demanding their release.
British forces have refused to release the detainees, insisting that the Iraqi police service had been prevented from bringing them to justice by "people who clearly oppose law and order".

The local police force has long been rumoured to have been infiltrated by members of the militia. There have been repeated protests in Basra over the past few weeks against the British presence, but one official admitted: "We have seen nothing on this scale."

A senior military figure said: "We need to keep a sense of perspective. There has been an increased attempt by them to disturb things ahead of [the constitutional referendum on] 15 October. Where is the surprise in that? We have responded by arresting some of their people.

"There has been a bit of a backlash, which we are more than capable of handling. Basra is not descending into chaos. Five, six or 10 petrol bombs does not a crisis make. It is just a road bump."

Mr Blair, who spent last night at Chequers, was kept informed about events. There are growing concerns within the Government that Britain is being sucked into its own Vietnam.

Calling for Mr Blair to set an exit date, Labour MPs said the scenes from Basra had echoes of the killing of two British soldiers who were murdered by a mob in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after driving into a republican funeral cortège in March 1988.

Clare Short, the former international development secretary, who resigned over the war, said: "We should negotiate an end to the occupation. They are all saying 'no' because it's such a mess we cannot leave now. But the occupation is the major problem now.

But Mr Reid said: "We remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security. The situation in Basra is calmer after a day of disturbances. At this stage it is not possible to be certain why these disturbances began. Many of those present were clearly prepared well in advance to cause trouble."

Asked about how the men were freed, an MoD spokesman said: "We have not had confirmation of the full details of this."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 06:37 am
Your right, cyclo, that is a different story. Wonder why Haidar al-Ebadi, spokesman for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari merely said they were arrested for looking suspicious and lacking papers?

It makes it hard to know the truth when there are so many different stories about the same things.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 06:42 am
Well it seems - and such was reported on BBC-radio from Iraq as well - that the arrested British soldiers were stopped at a police checkpoint, they failed to stop, and fired at the police, a gunfight ensued, but the Iraqi police managed to eventually arrest the 2 men.
Those arrested were wearing traditional Arab dress, were carrying explosives, and an anti tank missile.


The Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari was in Britain, btw, for talks aimed at trying to ease tensions following a dramatic British raid to free two soldiers detained by Iraqi police.

Jaafari was scheduled to meet Defence Secretary John Reid in London at 13:00, followed by a joint press conference afterwards, the Ministry of Defence said, giving no further details of the discussions - the press conference should happen shortly.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 06:46 am
What in the world were they planning to do with those weapons and why were they dressed as Arabs? Were they trying to kill people and blame it on the insurgents? Why?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 08:16 am
They are talking about that - and more - at the press conference ... seems to be interesting looking at first reactions on journalist blogs.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 08:16 am
Quote:
Iraqi police protest British raid
Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:58 AM ET



By Alaa Habib

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi police staged an angry anti-British protest in Basra on Wednesday as London and Baghdad sought to quell tension over a British raid to free soldiers held by militiamen in the southern city.

About 200 policemen who work at the police station damaged during the British raid marched through the streets, calling for the city police chief to be fired and for the "British terrorists" to be returned to Iraqi jurisdiction.

The Iraqi government said in a statement there was no crisis with Britain, but senior Iraqi officials have castigated the raid, with Basra province governor calling it a "barbaric act".

"Both governments are in close contact, and an inquiry will be conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior into the incident," a statement from Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari's office said. It also urged calm on all sides.

Jaafari, returning from New York, was due to meet British Defense Secretary John Reid in London at around 1300 GMT (0900 EDT).

Reid, under pressure at home over the deployment of 8,500 troops in Iraq and facing calls for a withdrawal timetable, told a British newspaper Britain would not "cut and run".

The diplomatic hitch follows a raid by British forces to free two undercover soldiers who were detained by Iraqi security forces in Basra following a firefight on Monday.

In the raid, British armored vehicles crushed the walls of an Iraqi jail before troops rescued the men from a militia group said by the British to have gained custody of them from police.

But Iraq's interior minister disputed the British military's account. Bayan Jabor told the BBC the men had never left police custody or the jail in Basra and were not handed to militants.

Basra, a mainly Shi'ite Muslim city, has experienced a surge in militia activity over the past nine months, with armed Shi'ite factions vying for influence in the security forces and the local council.

The militias are also believed to have carried out attacks on British troops, three of whom have been killed by roadside bombs this month, and on journalists exposing their activities.

Iraqi authorities admitted that insurgents had infiltrated the police and other security forces in Basra and elsewhere.

"Our Iraqi security forces in general, and these in particular and in many parts of Iraq, I have to admit that they have been penetrated by some of the insurgents," National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie told the BBC on Tuesday.

He said he did not know the extent of the infiltration, but said new procedures were in place to get rid of bad apples.

INFILTRATION

British commander Colonel Bill Dunham, chief of staff for multinational forces in Basra, also pointed to security force infiltration as a major problem. "It is something that affects the Iraqi police across Iraq as a whole," he told BBC Radio.

"We are aware of rogue elements in the Iraqi police service. The trick that we have to pull off now with the Iraqi authorities is to identify those elements, to weed them out and to reinforce the good parts of the Iraqi police service."

Britain has spent the past 2-1/2 years securing Basra and building up its security forces in the expectation that Iraqi forces could take over and allow British troops to withdraw.

The acknowledgement that more than two years' work has essentially failed to produce a functioning police force is likely to provoke anger among Iraqis, whose chief concern has always been security and who want foreign troops to leave.
source
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 10:21 am
"What in the world were they planning to do with those weapons and why were they dressed as Arabs? Were they trying to kill people and blame it on the insurgents?"

probably

"Why?"

why not?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 11:09 am
Halliburton serves contaminated water to troops
Whistleblowers' stomach-curdling story:
Halliburton serves contaminated water to troops
20 Sept. 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 (HalliburtonWatch.org)

Outrage overflowed on Capitol Hill this summer when members of Congress learned that Halliburton's dining halls in Iraq had repeatedly served spoiled food to unsuspecting troops. "This happened quite a bit," testified Rory Mayberry, a former food manager with Halliburton's KBR subsidiary.

But the outrage apparently doesn't end with spoiled food. Former KBR employees and water quality specialists, Ben Carter and Ken May, told HalliburtonWatch that KBR knowingly exposes troops and civilians to contaminated water from Iraq's Euphrates River. One internal KBR email provided to HalliburtonWatch says that, for "possibly a year," the level of contamination at one camp was two times the normal level for untreated water.

"I discovered the water being delivered from the Euphrates for the military was not being treated properly and thousands were being exposed daily to numerous pathogenic organisms," Carter informed HalliburtonWatch.

Carter worked at Camp Ar Ramadi, located 70 miles west of Baghdad in the notoriously violent Sunni Triangle, but he says water contamination problems exist throughout Iraq's military camps. He helped manage KBR's Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit (ROWPU), which is a water treatment system designed to produce potable (drinkable) water from a variety of raw water sources such as lakes, lagoons and rivers. ROWPU is supposed to provide the troops with clean water from Iraq's Euphrates River.

William Granger of KBR Water Quality for Iraq reached this conclusion in an email after investigating Carter's complaint: "Fact: We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated. The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River." Granger admitted that the contamination was "most likely … ongoing through the entire life" of the camp, but that he was "not sure if any attempt to notify the exposed population was ever made."

In a company email last March to his superior, Harold "Mo" Orr, coordinator for Halliburton's health and safety department said, "We have determined that the military (Command Surgeon) has not given any kind of signoff on the military ROWPU (As required by the military SOP) nor has KBR ever inquired about this before. This was only discovered thru the investigation of possible contamination by Ben Carter who is right now in charge of the ROWPU."

Orr's request for further investigation into the matter was overruled by KBR's health, safety and environmental manager, Jay Delahoussaye, who said in an email that the initial health hazard turned out to be "erroneous" and that "corrective measures" were taken and "No KBR personnel were exposed to contaminated water."

But Granger responded with another email, saying it was unclear whether corrective action had been taken. He said it was "highly likely" that someone from KBR finally started chlorinating the water this year, but that "there is no documentation" to confirm it. Nor is there documentation to show KBR is testing the water three times per day as required by the military, Granger said.

Nonetheless, Carter said chlorination is not enough to remedy the problem since raw sewage is routinely dumped less than two miles from the water intake location, in violation of military policy and procedure. "Chlorination of water tanks, while certainly beneficial, is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure," Carter said in an email to Granger, who is still employed with KBR.

According to Carter, Granger had written a scathing, 21-page report to KBR management about water quality at Ar Ramadi. Carter says the report proves the company's "incompetence and willful negligence" in protecting the water supply.

Granger has refused to comply with a company gag order and is convinced his employment will be terminated soon, says Carter. In an email to Ken May, Granger said, "I stand by all of my email's (internal or not). I have consistently been dogged in my approach that protection of the soldier, contractor, and subcontractor is paramount." In another email to Carter, Granger said he would support Carter's legal actions and that he's looking into legal protections for himself as a whistleblower. "I won't turn over any documents until I understand what is protected or not ... but know that if called to testify or such that I will disclose all that is in the report verbally," he said in the email.

Carter is in the process of obtaining worker's compensation from Halliburton over an illness he says was caused by the contaminated water.

Soldiers are often evacuated out of Iraq for non-combat related illnesses. The Association of Military Surgeons found that 9.1 percent of soldiers evacuated in 2003 suffered from problems of the digestive system; another 6.4 percent had nervous system disorders; 6.1% suffered urological problems; and 8.3 percent suffered from unknown illnesses.

In the early months of the war, the Army sent a team of investigators to probe a series of mysterious illnesses. Earlier this month, Canada reported an outbreak of gastrointestinal problems among soldiers serving in Afghanistan, where KBR is also involved.

Halliburton spokesperson, Melissa Norcross, told HalliburtonWatch that the water contamination allegations are "unfounded" and that "KBR has conducted its own inspection of the water at the site in question and has found no evidence to substantiate the allegations made by these former employees."

Norcross confirmed that non-potable (non-drinkable) water "was produced" at Ar Ramadi at the time of the camp's inception until May 2005, but that the military approved its use for showering and doing laundry. "During that time, bottled water was used for drinking and food preparation," she said.

Carter and May agree that KBR supplies bottled water for drinking, but that it's "absolutely untrue" that it's used for food preparation. Moreover, they never observed any posted signs or notices informing personnel not to drink the tap water, a possible sign of corporate negligence.

Of a possible sign of things to come, May said he observed an unsecured potable water tank used for food preparation at a dining facility. The bolts used to tighten the lid over the tank were missing. In an email to HalliburtonWatch, May said the tank was located in an open area "for anyone to enter, including the enemy." He worries that "contaminants/poisons could be introduced which could result in mass casualties."

Additionally, May said he and another KBR employee witnessed water being filled through an open lid on top of the water tank, thereby rendering the once potable water as non-potable. "Water is required to be pumped into the tank through a male/female hose hook-up with no direct exposure to the air," May said. Failure to do so would result in exposing the camp population to non-potable water. May and Carter say they notified KBR's quality assurance and quality control department, including Chief of Services Warren Smith, but no remedial action was taken.

Today, Norcross says KBR supplies clean drinking water throughout Camp Ar Ramadi, but that "For drinking and food preparation, KBR continues to supply bottled water throughout Iraq." She insists that "there have been no documented cases of unusual illnesses or health conditions" at Ar Ramadi.

But a private company email supplied to HalliburtonWatch appears to conflict with Halliburton's public denial. Halliburton public relations official, Jennifer Dellinger, wrote to her colleagues that Faith Sproul, who works in Halliburton's workers' compensation department, "does believe that initial tests showed some contamination to be present." As a result, Dellinger wrote, Sproul was concerned that former employees might "make a claim for disability" and "we could receive some queries on this if these former employees decide to go to the press." So, Dellinger asked her public relations colleagues, "Can you run some traps on this and see what you can find out?"

When HalliburtonWatch asked about this internal email and its apparent confirmation of Carter and May's allegations, Norcross responded by saying the email was written last July, prior to the company's final determination that no contamination occurred.

Carter resigned two weeks prior to Ken May, discovering what he said was "unsafe water and pressure to cover it up." "I tried to correct the problem, only to be blackballed by management and I eventually left this employment," Carter told HalliburtonWatch. Carter and May cite "poor company behavior patterns and practices from Site Management as the tell-tale sign of disaster looming around the corner if intervention is not taken very soon."

KBR's health and safety manager at Ar Ramadi, Harold Orr, also resigned because of the water issue but has remained silent, says May.

Carter and May also describe instances where a site manager urged everyone to conceal contamination information from the company's health and safety department. According to May, statements were made in an "All Hands Meeting" by then Site Manger Suzanne-Raku Williams, Warren Smith, and acting Medic Phillip Daigle suggesting that if anyone became sick, it was probably from the handles from the port-a-lets toilets and not from water contamination. In response, Ken May resigned out of disgust and frustration. In an email to superiors, he chastised KBR for what he said was "retaliatory behavior from dishonest site management" and "inaction" that "compromised" camp safety and the health of the people who work there. He expressed concern over "the lack of oversight from the outside to investigate, redirect, and periodically monitor" the water to assure a healthy workplace. "Unfortunately, because of the lack of regards for my wellbeing [and] no response or action from KBR/Halliburton I have no recourse other than to resign," he said in an email to his supervisor.

Carter and May's experience is not uncommon at KBR, where former employees have described instances of being ostracized or terminated if they dare to speak out against company negligence, mismanagement or malfeasance. Other former KBR employees have testified about being fired or urged to quit or conceal information after pointing out low-cost solutions to simple problems. But, a cynic might note, allowing small problems to grow into expensive ones through purposeful neglect actually boosts KBR's profits as there is a profit guarantee of 1% to 3% over cost for the LOGCAP III contract. As with all of KBR's "cost plus" military contracts, the more expensive the problem, the greater the fee paid to KBR from the government. So, it would seem there is actually a built-in incentive not to prevent small problems or reward whistleblower employees like Carter and May when neglect will result in a costlier problem down the road and more profits for KBR.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 11:17 am
Nothing like making a profit at the expense of our troops. This administration will "never get it." They compromise our troops by fighting battles without the right equipment, then they poison them in the messhalls. When they come home from their battles, their veteran's benefits are reduced or non-existent.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 05:22 pm
Grim reading from today's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1574478,00.html

The recent evidence of compromise, infiltration and corruption within the Iraqi police has intensified the debate here about the value of having our troops there: is the situation getting better, or worse?
Are we part of the solution, or part of the problem?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 03:57:16