digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Blood of Civilians on Halliburton's hands

huffingtonpost.com — Senior managers for defense contractor KBR overruled calls to halt supply operations in Iraq in the spring of 2004, ordering unarmored trucks into an active combat zone where six civilian drivers died in an ambush, according to newly available documents.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 4, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

91 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • 11Heather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28Are civilians counted on the U.S.'s official "dead in Iraq" count? If I remember right, it's only army folk who get counted. If this is the case, then these highly paid contract working civilians are merely 'collaterol damage' and worth the price to Cheney.
  • 11Heather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18If you put a child into a cage with a poisonous snake, the child gets bitten, do you blame the snake?
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Great, so as long as we're a couple inches above terrorists, we're the good guys, right?
  • suxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Ummm surreal trying to say that war is as simple as 'whoever pulls the trigger is guilty.' If Hitler never shot anyone would you let him off the hook?
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12This is from wikipedia:

    "Employee safety

    Halliburton does not arm its truck drivers, who in Iraq are often the target of insurgent attacks. In one case, on September 20, 2005, a Halliburton convoy of four trucks was ambushed north of Baghdad. All four trucks were struck by IEDs and were disabled. Their US National Guard escort was thought to have abandoned the disabled vehicles, leaving the unarmed truck drivers defenseless. Three of the four truck drivers were executed by the insurgents while the surviving driver, Preston Wheeler, caught the event on video. It was 45 minutes before the US military arrived again at the scene.[18] However, in a statement by senior military officials in Iraq, an investigation revealed that troops did not abandon the civilians and were exiting the "kill zone" during the ambush."

    http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6056&Itemid=18
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_us_tr.html
  • kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11is this the video?
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rxx1Lo8fZwQ
  • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10a lot of soldiers death's aren't even counted. if they suffer fatal injuries, they are flown out of the iraq to other military bases. only the ones that actually die in iraq are counted as "died in iraq".
  • drunkentoad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10God bless democracy, and all the bank accounts it can fill.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yep, and it's actually worse than that. If a convoy of Humvees is hit by an IED, the Humvee hit by the IED is considered a result of combat. The Humvee that runs into the first Humvee is not considered a result of combat.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No, that's called "right on the money".
  • TriTech, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Outsourcing is good. I think we should outsource the entire war to the Indians and the Chinese. Why put American lives at risk when we can pay someone else. After all, China is supplying the money for the war, why not let them fight it, too.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Human lives. A small price to pay for maximum profits.
  • SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Human lives don't mean anything when there are billions in war profits to be made. These are "acceptable losses" to the people who are stuffing their pockets with cash. We are also dealing with Bush trying to salvage his precious "legacy" now. Unfortunately, a lot more lives will be wasted while Bush stubbornly refuses to listen to anyone, as he vainly tries to create a spot for himself in the history books.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Why do you think Haliburton's stock performed so much better in the first 6 years of Clinton's term than in Bush's?"

    Rubbish.
  • n0xin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Military officials in Washington and Baghdad said that no Pentagon office tracked contractor casualties and that they had no way to confirm or explain the sharp rise in deaths this year."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/world/middleeast/19contractors.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=3f0839f5826da44b&ex=1337227200
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"We know the insurgents are mindless, inhuman monsters;"

    Been reading up on Hitler's demonization of the Jews, have you?
  • synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6well at least those men died for a noble cause - protecting your stock portfolio
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Joe needs his steak and lobster on friday. Surf and turf in a war zone, ahhh the smell of Victory(base).
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Get real. You know that wasn't my point.

    My point is that people should stop excusing the actions of their government or other unethical actors with "well gee, the terrorists!"
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Interesting title. Do you think Halliburton cares? It's not about blood, it's about $$$. They don't care where it comes from as long as it keeps flowing in. Much has been written regarding the necessity of war to keep the state happy. Don't expect to be able to feed the 'tired, poor and hungry' without the state needing the funds to do so to keep them entrenched.

    There is no such thing as a free lunch. Never has and never will be. People are more and more reliant upon government these days. Some of us have special clips for the government types when they come by our place. AP rounds punch through like a knife through butter. You need to decided if you are about We the People or about It the Government. Decision making time is drawing shorter and shorter.....
  • sjbdallas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Correct. The civilians chose to be there. I know guys who had offers to make almost double their salary to go there for 6 months. There were well aware of the danger and still chose to go.
  • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The contractors aren't counted in the official tallies. They do operations that used to be performed by the military, but they don't get reported in those numbers.
    http://icasualties.org/oif/Contractors.aspx
    Iraq Coalition Casualties has the number at 1001. They don't have all the names. If you didn't watch it, check out The Great Iraq Swindle. It shows one contractor who was dropped from his health insurance after receiving life-threatening wounds.
    http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/08/30/the-great-iraq-swindle/
  • feckineejit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5the longer we are in Iraq the more money Halliburton will make and the more people will die.

    SAUDIS ARE FUNDING BOTH THE BUSHES & TERRORISM.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I thought this was about them having the worlds supply of WMD, and we didn't find a SINGLE ONE. Try again.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It wasn't hard to comprehend.
  • Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Sending someone into a pool of sharks doesn't mean you blame it all on the sharks for the person being devoured.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"I don't have to assume. With liberals, the blame belongs everywhere else BUT where it richly deserves."

    Irony.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6WOW. Cassholio throws in a direct quote from Rumsfeld when replying to soldier moral a while back. Fox News Alert!
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6@cassholio you are saying that Halliburton is not liable for their actions - they couldn't have listened to the military advisors that told them not to send unarmed civilians into battle b/c they have no free will - aka they are animals
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Party of Personal Responsibility.
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8if you think what he was saying is that Iraqi militants are animals, you need to learn how analogies work is before you start making up your own.
  • rdonkey31, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4disgusting
  • chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+61. If it's their choice and their safety doesn't matter than why was there a congressional hearing on Blackwater USA.

    2. Blaming the terrorists for attacking killing? You ***** bet. But just remember how much tension, and bloodshed were instigated by these "private warriors" who can basically do w/e the ***** they want and not be bound by laws nor military ethics. Just remember who is the provoker here, who also started so much problems on their own they couldn't even take care of it themselves. And force our military to get in the mix thus efficiently ***** up any chance to isolate/weakens the remaining fraction of extremists post-Sadam. The real "terrorist" saw this as an golden opportunity on their end, and that's how we've come to our problems today.

    it's scary how people determines the merits of events base solely on one or two reporting, instead of the whole picture.
  • kunradish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The thing is in the war Hitler never even a pulled a trigger in retaliation that was for the soldier Hitler was the brains not the brawn.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Do you believe that anyone that shoots at an American service member is a terrorist?
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Look at it from their point of view. "the people who die are not shareholders and not buying our product so who cares?"
  • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I understood his point perfectly.

    Maybe you are the moron;)
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh yeah besides all those trillions of dollars of oil under the sand. =)
  • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good link. If you like James Risen, check out his book "State of War." It is an incredible read.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Well we did invade and take over Iraq for no real reason at all.
  • scorchedearth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2KBR have been smuggling drugs for years. Them being responsible for innocent civilian deaths is not surprising or unprecedented.
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Halliburton = America? Oh wait..
  • shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4They chose to work in a war zone, Iraq's sons and daughters had no choice. No sympathy from me.
  • mstoneburner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Anyone who goes into a ***** war zone and expects everything to work out perfectly and to never be in any danger is a ***** idiot. They knew the risks.
  • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they chose to go, but often once they get their the safety mechanisms promised by company aren't there. the security escort for an envoy in fallujah was supposed to be 6 guys in two cars. instead it was 4, so each car was missing a tailgunner. they were ambushed from behind, leading to the deaths of all four and a change in military strategy there that resulted in a meltdown.
  • chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So if someone hits you in the head with a baseball bat because he wants your I-pod you won't blame them?
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3cassholio is still living in a dream world...
  • crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4If you would like a better anology, it would be like telling ordering someone to walk through a mine field without giving them a way to detect or avoid the land mines. It's not the landmines fault, nor is it the fault of the person who put the landmines there if you knew they're there and sent your people through anyway without safety precautions, then it's your fault.
  • RecklessProcess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Gee, sure is awful that a President gave the no-bid contrcts to Haliburton. Now which president was that? Clinton! Back in 1998 Clinton assigned Haliburton to be the one to make 'war profits'.

    It makes me laugh every time I see a bunch of angry liberals trying to blame Bush for the contract Haliburton got from Clinton while Clinton was in office. Bush did not choose them. They were already in place thanks to Clinton.
  • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We found WMDs, simply not in the capacity or volume that we were led to believe. Moreover, there are more then a dozen separate accounts from ex-Republican Guards and top ex-Iraqi officials who testified before Congress that massive amounts of weapons, including WMDs were moved to Syria in the weeks preceding the 'war'. Published Israeli intelligence, as well as our own CIA photos have confirmed large convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria escorted by the once Iraqi military.

    For the record, I view this information as speculative at best. I do/did not support the invasion of Iraq, although to be factual - there were also 12 UN Resolutions that were also mentioned in the same speech as the WMDs. Again, I do not agree with the decision to go to war against Iraq, but I think there are too many people who claim to know the facts and read nothing more then the headlines. I think this is problematic however of the environment we have created with our partisan bickering and not having a significant third party presence. Fact remains, while we now have more then enough 'anti-war' Democrats in office to overrule the president - we are still in Iraq and still waging war. All the while the fingers continue to point and the slogans continue to overlook the Congress who has the complete capacity to do the job they were voted in to failing to do so.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.