Somali Islamists threaten 'jihadi war' against Ethiopia

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Does Haliburton make weapons?

I don't know, but they are certainly profiting from war.

Ever heard of the military-industrial complex?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Haha. The US. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

This 'breeding ground for terrorism'. Who are they planning to terrorize?

Us.
Osama bin Laden used the Sudan as a base after he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_b...on_of_al-Qaeda

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CalgaryCowboy

Ironic that the US is expected to police the world but get shunned when it makes war on another country. Now we want them to get involved in one nation making war on another. Don't get the UN involved they can't agree on anything. Maybe NATO.

I know this isn't politically correct but I wonder if the best solution in some of these conflicts isn't to not get involved and let them resolve themselves. Let the middle east fight it out and I bet in the end the region is more stable.

Sorry, feeling kind of mean today.

I'm not expecting the USA to police the world. I'd settle for them and France and the UK and Russia and China and any others to stop fueling these wars with weapons.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Knew it was coming, and sadly, I can't disagree.

Iraq HAS tied the US's hands, so obviously the UN should be taking a bigger role. Are they?

Is the US pushing the UN to take a larger role in Somalia? Are they sponsoring resolutions in the Security Council to have these matters dealt with?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Now you're catching on!

I don't believe it is good for the West's economy in the long run either but it is certainly good for Haliburton's economy.

I think you should actually examine how much profit Haliburton has made from being in Iraq....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Is the US pushing the UN to take a larger role in Somalia? Are they sponsoring resolutions in the Security Council to have these matters dealt with?

I don't think many people in the US take the UN seriously anymore. Too many times in the past have they proven to be a complete failure.

Now if the UN went ahead a drafted numerous resolutions to deal with the problem in Africa, do you think the US would veto them?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think you should actually examine how much profit Haliburton has made from being in Iraq....

If they aren't making a killing it must be because they're incompetent. Hmm, why does that seem so reasonable.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think many people in the US take the UN seriously anymore. Too many times in the past have they proven to be a complete failure.

Well... I think the US takes it seriously enough to have used their Veto more often than any other Security Council member. Obviously they show up to meetings... and pay for the bulk of UN maintenance (if they've paid yet). The US has had several operations become 'complete failures' (Somalia, Vietnam, potentially Iraq), does that mean we shouldn't take the US seriously any more?

Now if the UN went ahead a drafted numerous resolutions to deal with the problem in Africa, do you think the US would veto them?

How the heck would this be possible? The UN is a beureaucratic/administrative body... it does what its told, it doesn't tell states what to do.

The only way the UN can 'go ahead and draft resolutions to deal with the problem in Africa' is to have its member-states, most notably the Security Council permanent members, to create and sponsor them. The 'UN' takes no initiative, thats up to its member-states to legislate.

For some reason I get the feeling people like to politically separate the 'UN' from its member-states. One does not act without the other, the UN is not able to unilaterally do anything. People always like to shoot the messenger...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If they aren't making a killing it must be because they're incompetent. Hmm, why does that seem so reasonable.

Look it up. You'll be suprised.

[Azure]

Well... I think the US takes it seriously enough to have used their Veto more often than any other Security Council member. Obviously they show up to meetings... and pay for the bulk of UN maintenance (if they've paid yet). The US has had several operations become 'complete failures' (Somalia, Vietnam, potentially Iraq), does that mean we shouldn't take the US seriously any more?

Are you sure about that?

The US hasn't drafted resolutions and refused to own up to them.

The only way the UN can 'go ahead and draft resolutions to deal with the problem in Africa' is to have its member-states, most notably the Security Council permanent members, to create and sponsor them. The 'UN' takes no initiative, thats up to its member-states to legislate.

And because of the fact that the US doesn't feel the UN is competent, surely they aren't going to start such a resolution.

The UN is a failure, and anything they would do in Africa would be a failure too. Far as I'm concerned, because of the veto power, the SC has become incompetent, and should be abolished. The UN should focus more on the WHO and such.

For some reason I get the feeling people like to politically separate the 'UN' from its member-states. One does not act without the other, the UN is not able to unilaterally do anything. People always like to shoot the messenger...

Because THAT messenger has shown to be incompetent in every move it has made. Reminds me a lot of the League of Nations.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Look it up. You'll be suprised.

Halliburton's been fired from their exclussive, scandle ridden contract in Iraq but are still free to bid. They've been working on a costplus contract which guarantees a profit, so I don't know where you are coming from.

I'm sure other contracter's of similar war mongering ilk and connections are licking their chops right now as they prepare for their own war profits.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

The UN is a failure, and anything they would do in Africa would be a failure too. Far as I'm concerned, because of the veto power, the SC has become incompetent, and should be abolished. The UN should focus more on the WHO and such.

Well... luckily the US differs with you on that. I don't think anyone on either side of the spectrum (except extremists) would judge the UN 'failed' and 'incompetent' outright, with no redeeming values. Except, of course, for those that aren't really aware of what the UN actually does and is.

Do you know what they do? Security is like 3% of their overall mandate. To judge them a failed organization based on your perception that they're not successful global ass-kickers seems a little simplistic.

www.un.org

Because THAT messenger has shown to be incompetent in every move it has made. Reminds me a lot of the League of Nations.

This is just rhetoric, there's no substance here.

If the organization is that failed, isn't the entire Western world playing the fool by actively participating in dozens of their operations, of their own volition no less! Like Canada...? Obviously you're in the minority in your opinion when considering actual state policies and actions.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Calgary Flames

Damn brits

We do have bad teeth.. but c'mon.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Halliburton's been fired from their exclussive, scandle ridden contract in Iraq but are still free to bid. They've been working on a costplus contract which guarantees a profit, so I don't know where you are coming from.

I'm sure other contracter's of similar war mongering ilk and connections are licking their chops right now as they prepare for their own war profits.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Again, while they do make a profit, last time I checked, it wasn't over 10%.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, while they do make a profit, last time I checked, it wasn't over 10%.

Looking into it, I find the terms are classified but I think everbody agrees they're making a killing on Iraq and Afganistan. Halliburton may lose money on other projects though. Anyways the contracts are in the billions and are guaranteed by the government to be profitable. Just another example of the government working with big business to the extent of making me wonder who is calling the shots.

[Devils'Advocate]

(1) This is a civil war with neighboring countries starting to get involved. There is little the UN can do in this situation. But we should be doing exactly what we did in the first civil war; allow the people to come here as refugees. I have a friend who escaped just before the major fighting broke out in the first war. He has a web site for Somali-Canadians so they can know what is happening back home. He pays a reporter in Somalia to send news articles to him for his web site ($30 CAN/month is enough for the guy to feed his family). He's also used my audio/video equipment for doing documentry work; recording interviews with people who have escaped over the years. He has not heard from his reporter friend in a while and is fearing the worst.
(2) I think what the US did wrong was taking one side over the other in the first civil war. They should have realized that both sides were being run by evil madmen. By choosing sides, they evoked resentment by all the Somali people as they felt the US was deciding Somali matters. Eventually, the US gave up on trying to help end the civil war... and no force since has been strong enough to form a government.
(3) My friend was asked to go back and sit on a council that was trying to form a government. He refused on the grounds that the survival rate of anyone sitting on these councils is practically zero. And the probability of invoking positive change is about the same.

We can go blaming Bush, Clinton, Annan..... but really this can be blamed solely on the warlords running the country. And until they have finished killing each other off, there is little that can be done unless some country is willing to sustain losses similar to what the US has lost in Iraq. I've seen the images out of Somalia and the starving 10 year olds wearing rags and torn sandels, carrying semis. When guns are easier to come across than loaves of bread, what CAN be done?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Looking into it, I find the terms are classified but I think everbody agrees they're making a killing on Iraq and Afganistan. Halliburton may lose money on other projects though. Anyways the contracts are in the billions and are guaranteed by the government to be profitable. Just another example of the government working with big business to the extent of making me wonder who is calling the shots.

The Iraq contracts were awarded under LOGCAP. Basically it's an Army SuperContract (first awarded in 1992 to Halliburton/Brown and Root, reawarded in 1997 to Dynacorp, and reawarded in 2001 to Halliburton/Kellog Brown and Root).

When the army are involved in operations, they need contractors to quickly provide a whole massive range of services for them. It would take too long to individually bid on each contract - and they need the services quickly. So with LOGCAP they have an open bid for a multi-year contract that essentially means the winning company will provide services whenever and whereever the army needs them.

Halliburton was awarded contracts in the Balkans, under the Clinton Administration, in exactly the same way.

Another thing to note is that the contracts for LOGCAP are paid out at cost + a profit margin. It used to be 1 - 9%, but now it's more like 1 - 3%.

So if it's an $11 billion contract you're talking about a profit of between $110 million and $330 million. Even assuming all these contracts were for the year 2005 (they're not, they're for the years 2002 - 2004) these contracts would only be a share of between 4.7% and 14.3% of overall yearly profits for the company - $2.3 billion for 2005 (and more likely weighted towards the lower end as the majority of their Iraq contracts were logistics contracts at a 1.4% profit margin rate).

Halliburton Iraq contracts: $11 billion
Profits: $110 - $330 million

Total revenue for 2005 $20 billion
Total profits for 2005 $2.3 billion
Q4 revenue $5 billion
Q4 profits $1 billion

As you can see, Halliburton's earnings off their LOGCAP contract (which they won in an open bid) have been a rather small slice of their profits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

The company's contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the time they start to expire in 2006, but most offer low margins — less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work [citation needed] making these contracts less profitable than Halliburton's core energy business. The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated.

Another site here shows how much the contracts are worth....

http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/r...aspx?act=total

[Vulcan]

Well Azure, the beautiful thing about cost plus contracts [and I've benefited from some beauties] is that the common workers and the upper end staff as well as the CEOs can charge inflated prices for their services. The one to ten percent plus government bonus profits, mostly benefit the CEOs and shareholders. All in all a great deal for everyone but the war casualties and the American taxpayers.

Did I forget to add the featherbedding, kickbacks and overinflated purchases etc. that go with such open ended agreements?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Does Haliburton make weapons?

A very good question--and one that we should take seriously. Kellogg Brown and Root is subsidiary of Halliburton, and they're involved in a lot of military contracting--in fact, that's a relationship that dates back to th Johnson administration. Do they make weapons? Well--they construct military bases, and occasionally outsource security contracts. They don't make "weapons"--but in a very real sense, what they "make" is war. Without war, Kellogg Brown and Root could not exist. So--while your point is technically true, the spirit of the claim still stands--which is that Halliburton ain't just an oil company.

As for weapons manufacturers that benefit from instability in the middle east, there are plenty. Lockheed Martin might well be one of them. I'm no expert, but when the U.S. Military is buying weapons, someone in the U.S. is making money.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well Azure, the beautiful thing about cost plus contracts [and I've benefited from some beauties] is that the common workers and the upper end staff as well as the CEOs can charge inflated prices for their services. The one to ten percent plus government bonus profits, mostly benefit the CEOs and shareholders. All in all a great deal for everyone but the war casualties and the American taxpayers.

Did I forget to add the featherbedding, kickbacks and overinflated purchases etc. that go with such open ended agreements?

Very true. But you must also realize that a profit of lower then 10% is NOT a killing.

In fact, for a company that big, its terrible.