Jump to content

U.N. says Halliburton stole millions from Iraq


Balta1701

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 6, 2005 -> 02:04 PM)
You do realize it was an independant auditing board that is making the accusation? Do you really want the UN investigating this themselves?

 

 

Yes I do. However, with their rush to accuse without anything to back it up I wonder just how "independent" this agency really is. Unfortunately, without any objective evidence this whole thing just stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 6, 2005 -> 02:08 PM)
Yes I do.  However, with their rush to accuse without anything to back it up I wonder just how "independent" this agency really is.  Unfortunately, without any objective evidence this whole thing just stinks.

 

War is popular because of all the profits that spring from it. Young men and women die, and investors smile. I wonder of we could take out the profit motive, make elected officials take the lead in a charge or two, how many wars would be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 6, 2005 -> 02:01 PM)
They could start by gathering something more concrete than accusations.  As I said before,  they are the only proven theives between the 2 of them and accusations backed up by nothing lead me to call bulls***.

 

because the audits were continuing, it was too early to say how much of the $208 million should ultimately be paid back.

 

Details will probably become clear when the audit is actually finished. The monitoring board also suggests that other contractors should be reimbursed only when the audits are actually finished.

 

Once the audits are completed, said the board member, who asked not to be identified because he did not want to be seen as speaking for the United Nations

 

If the rest of the members of the board are like this then the "UN is corrupt judging the corrupt" argument doesn't fly.

 

The board consists of representatives from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Iraqi government.

 

Yah, forget the UN is corrupt too argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Nov 6, 2005 -> 02:15 PM)
Details will probably become clear when the audit is actually finished.  The monitoring board also suggests that other contractors should be reimbursed only when the audits are actually finished.

If the rest of the members of the board are like this then the "UN is corrupt judging the corrupt" argument doesn't fly.

Yah, forget the UN is corrupt too argument.

 

 

Yeah, even though they're sitting on the board. Independent indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 6, 2005 -> 02:35 PM)
Yeah,  even though they're sitting on the board.  Independent indeed.

 

No one on the UN board is also on the audit team, I'm not certain where you are picking that up. There was one UN board member who gave background information to the reporter, but the UN Board member did not wish to give him name, to avoid the appearance it was an official announcement from the UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 12:05 AM)
No one on the UN board is also on the audit team, I'm not certain where you are picking that up. There was one UN board member who gave background information to the reporter, but the UN Board member did not wish to give him name, to avoid the appearance it was an official announcement from the UN.

So we have yet another unnamed source giving info that is presumed to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 6, 2005 -> 07:56 PM)
So we have yet another unnamed source giving info that is presumed to be true.

 

No, that isn't the case at all. What we have is a named, international, multi agency, auditing board giving the information and their accusations. We also have an unnamed UN board member confirming and discussing possible UN actions and what they would like to do with all the contractors, not just Halliburton, if those accusations are true.

 

It is tough to keep track without a scorecard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 02:20 AM)
No, that isn't the case at all. What we have is a named, international, multi agency, auditing board giving the information and their accusations. We also have an unnamed UN board member confirming and discussing possible UN actions and what they would like to do with all the contractors, not just Halliburton, if those accusations are true.

 

It is tough to keep track without a scorecard.

Tex, while it may indeed contain accusations about other contractors, the story as linked mentions only Halliburton. Also, if the audits are still continuing, as reported, why say these things now? You have the whole figure put out there, and only the name of Halliburton, when there may be other contractors involved, and the final tally may be less. Releasing this info to the public serves no good except to inflame an already tense region even more, and to tweak Georgie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 6, 2005 -> 10:27 PM)
Tex, while it may indeed contain accusations about other contractors, the story as linked mentions only Halliburton.  Also, if the audits are still continuing, as reported, why say these things now?  You have the whole figure put out there, and only the name of Halliburton, when there may be other contractors involved, and the final tally may be less.  Releasing this info to the public serves no good except to inflame an already tense region even more, and to tweak Georgie.

 

If the audits are turning up problems, they may have a legal obligation to report the findings, I'm not certain. We've seen the opposite, where s*** hits the fan and we learn a company has been under investigation, yet the government continued to use them, and then it looks like a Keystone Cops movie.

 

I don't think the UN, the auditors, or the US government has an obligation to cover for Halliburton. But, if as you say, it was to make someone look bad, I think it was to make the US look bad, not just the President.

 

I am also a little leery when the press is expected to control information and only release it when it won't do any damage. I am certain Clinton would have preferred Monica to break after he was President. Using this example, the Starr investigation would have happened in secrecy, and nothing reported until it was "proven".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...