THE NEW MARSHALL PLAN ver. 2003: Overseas Opportunities! War for Profit and Jobs!

[Chip McDonald]

The following ad has been appearing in the local newspaper here in Augusta Georgia. Hopefully by now everyone knows of the adminstration's connections with Halliburton: -------------------------------------------- [b] Building the future. Powering new ideas. Overseas Opportunities If working in an environment that stimulates your curiosity, challenges your experiences and creates new opportunities for growth interests you, explore the opportunities with one of the world's most dynamic engineering and construction groups. KBR, formerly known as Brown & Root Services, is a global leader in lifecycle support services including logistics, operations, maintenance, design engineering and construction. KBR Government Operations is currently hiring personnel for the Central Asia region, and accepting resumes from qualified individuals who would like to be considered for employment with experience in the following positions: Power Generator Mechanics HVAC Mechanics Fire Fighters Food Services Air Traffic Controllers Laundry Services Warehouse/SSA personnel Planners/Schedulers/Estimators POL Operations Heavy Drivers HET/PLS* Truck Drivers* *(Class A CDL required) Secretarial with Security Clearance Heavy Equipment Operators Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Wheel/Vehicle Mechanics Waste Water Treatment Aviation Support MHE Specialist Logistic Managers RTCH Operators Housing Services Pest/Vector Control Cargo Specialist Medical/Paramedics Human Resources QA/QC Project Managers Communications Safety Transportation Managers Heavy Equipment Operators Heavy Equipment Mechanics Mechanics M1 Abrams Mechanics M2/3 Bradley Mechanics Track vehicle Weather Observer Interested candidates may e-mail their resume to: logcap3@halliburton.com; or you may fax your resume to : (713) 676-3983. NO PHONE CALLS PLEASE Equal Opportunity Employer[/b] --------------------------------- It looks like the U.S. is going to pay Halliburton to rebuild Iraq after the U.S. levels it. Why don't we just hand the reins of the government over to Halliburton, or some other obviously competant corporation and just be done with it? We haven't even gone to war yet and here's a company waiting in the wings to make some $$$ off of it. Mechanics for Bradleys and M1's? Why doesn't the Army have those? ATCs? Laundry services? Halliburton acting as a clearinghouse seems..... I mean, geez, the U.S. can't arrange for this infrastructure without giving a present to a corporation? Why can't these be outgrowths of the U.S. government - SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE U.S. TROOPS DOING THE *real* WORK? So surreal. The Vice President's old company is going to make $$$$$$$$$$ to put infrastructure into a country the U.S. is about to demolish, meanwhile the VP's country itself is apparently incapable to being run effectively. Why not just make the Neuraq (tm) infrastructure an outgrowth of the U.S.? Let's get real - it's the U.S. that's footing the bill, fighting the war, the whole thing - WHY pretend otherwise? Unbelievable. Has anyone else seen these ads in their locale?

[Duhduh]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]The following ad has been appearing in the local newspaper here in Augusta Georgia. Hopefully by now everyone knows of the adminstration's connections with Halliburton: -------------------------------------------- [b] Building the future. Powering new ideas. Overseas Opportunities If working in an environment that stimulates your curiosity, challenges your experiences and creates new opportunities for growth interests you, explore the opportunities with one of the world's most dynamic engineering and construction groups. KBR, formerly known as Brown & Root Services, is a global leader in lifecycle support services including logistics, operations, maintenance, design engineering and construction. KBR Government Operations is currently hiring personnel for the Central Asia region, and accepting resumes from qualified individuals who would like to be considered for employment with experience in the following positions: [/b] --------------------------------- It looks like the U.S. is going to pay Halliburton to rebuild Iraq after the U.S. levels it. [/b][/quote]Ummm...Looks like the ad says Central [i]"Asia"[/i] region.

[miroslav]

Now if only they were looking for studio musicians, engineers and producers...

[Lee Flier]

Actually, here is what else I think the administration wants to do (you heard it here first folks): set up overseas manufacturing plants for hydrogen fuel cells. In case I haven't mentioned this here yet (and I try to mention it often because it's an oft misunderstood subject that I happen to have been involved with for many years), hydrogen fuel is NOT going to help us achieve energy independence, although its proponents (including our prez, as in his State of the Union address) are going to do their best to disguise that fact by careful avoidance of certain facts. To sum it up briefly, hydrogen is not really a "fuel," it's an energy storage medium, like a battery. Yes, it does burn cleanly and so cars that run on hydrogen cells would help to reduce air pollution in urban areas where there are a lot of cars. HOWEVER, what "they" don't tell you is that although hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and is pretty much everywhere, it takes a tremendous amount of energy to extract pure hydrogen from the various compounds in which it exists. Most hydrogen fuel produced today is extracted from natural gas, which is the MOST efficient way to get it - but of course one could just as easily burn the natural gas and get much greater efficiency and it burns almost as cleanly. And of course, all the energy it takes to produce a hydrogen fuel cell has to come from... somewhere. So the hydrogen hype is basically just a way for the existing oil companies to make even more money, by playing a very clever "shell game." By switching to cars that run on hydrogen fuel, we in the west can enjoy driving vehicles that don't pollute OUR air - and somebody else can "enjoy" five times as much pollution at the point the cells are manufactured. So... let's say that we go bomb the crap out of Iraq, which will of course be devastated afterward and its people be in need of "jobs." I predict the oil companies are going to set up shop there big-time, not just pumping the oil and shipping it to the west in crude form, but actually refining it there and building oil fired power plants. Which can be used to make hydrogen fuel cells. The cells can then be shipped to the west already made, the oil companies are happy because they no longer have to deal with the shipping of oil and the threat of leaks or spills. Americans are happy to have a "clean, non polluting" source of energy for their SUV's, and happy to hear that they've provided those poor Iraqis with jobs refining oil and making fuel cells. And if it doesn't happen in Iraq it'll happen in Saudi Arabia. Or both. Central Asia sounds good too - pretty much anyplace where there's a lot of cheap labor and not too much bother about environmental concerns/pollution. And the closer to the oilfields the better. Bet on it.

[offramp]

"although hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and is pretty much everywhere," Oh. I thought that was stupidity. My mistake.

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, if we could just harness all the energy that is wasted on stupidity we'd have this whole energy problem solved. :D

[fantasticsound]

I can't comment on Halliburton, in particular, setting up shop in Central Asia, but Chip, you're way out of line. It is SOP for our gov't to involve corporations in preparations for war. My father travelled to Greneda soon after the invasion for Abbott Laboratories. As I understand it, the U.S. would not have invaded had there been no corporations willing to come in and build businesses in the aftermath. I'd be very surprised if there aren't several corporations that have already committed to investment and manufacturing in Iraq after a successful invasion. The gov't shouldn't rebuild infrastructure in Iraq. Private companies are better suited to that task. So continue to flame away at big corporations. Lord knows most of them deserve it. But don't assume they're simply greedy for assisting the gov't to stabilize Iraq after the war. Whether the president is Republican or Democrat, they need support from big business to succeed after a military victory.

[Duhduh]

A few years ago I saw this video about an engine called the "Fisher Engine". It was basically a combustion engine that combusted water instead of gasoline. When highly pressurized, the water turned to steam, which expanded and forced the cylinder back. It was completely sealed, so it never needed to be refueled. They showed an actual working model and a cross section example. It was ingenius! They also paired this engine with a solar power cell that used freon instead of water. This thing was able to generate energy in pure darkness and sub-zero temperatures. The technology has been out there for decades. Hell, even hybrid gas/electric cars would change everything!

[Super 8]

Chip, are you asking if you should go and apply? I think you should. It'll get you out of Augusta. I was not aware of the administrations connection to Halliburton, but I can't say I blame them. She is a babe. Loved her in Monsters Ball... Lee, your take on this is incredibly sadistic. Basically what I'm hearing you tell me is that the goal is to toxify an oil rich country's air so that we can clean up ours. Hell, I don't know. You both could be right. But this sounds to me like you're both filling in the details with some really broad assumptions.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Duhduh: [b]Ummm...Looks like the ad says Central [i]"Asia"[/i] region.[/b][/quote]C'mon, what are they going to say, "we need people to rebuild Iraq after we blow it up?" You've got Armenia hanging out right there on the border with Turkey, which will be the staging area. Where in "Central Asia" will we have M1 Abrams AND need all of the rest? An interesting scenario could involve a pipeline from Iraq up through Turkey, across the Caspian - bypassing Iran. Feed energy to Central Asia and the rest of China, make a lot of friends doing that, stabilize the region.. eventually go into a Trans-Asian pipeline, branch it into Russia... that would do a lot to stabilize things. It would suck from an environmental standpoint, but it would make sense geopolitically. It's something OPEC couldn't pull off - and wouldn't want to, but it *is* something the U.S. could manage and it would make someone a TON of money, a massive whopping major TON of money. It's either that or we're rebuilding Kazahkstan from our military bases there. Wait, we don't have military bases in Kazahkstan... and the U.S. doesn't care about Kazahkstan rebuilding...

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]It is SOP for our gov't to involve corporations in preparations for war. My father travelled to Greneda soon after the invasion for Abbott Laboratories.[/b][/quote]*After* the *invasion*. Not exactly the same thing or same scale. [b] Private companies are better suited to that task.[/b] Where is Halliburton going to get "private money" to rebuild Iraq? [b]So continue to flame away at big corporations. [/b] I shall. [b]assume they're simply greedy for assisting the gov't to stabilize Iraq after the war. [/b] The point is that A) Cheney has a nice cushy $35 million retirement from Halliburton and B) Halliburton/KBR makes a LOT of money from "rebuilding" after such things, and stands to make more from the Iraq situation. They're not ASSISTING the government, they are making a LARGE PROFIT off of it. A corporation does not do something out of the kindness of it's virtual heart, it will only move if there's a profit involved. That a company so closely tied to making a profit from global disputes is connected to the Vice President of the United States should give most people a bit of a reason to question what motives are involved.

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] [quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]It is SOP for our gov't to involve corporations in preparations for war. My father travelled to Greneda soon after the invasion for Abbott Laboratories.[/b][/quote]*After* the *invasion*. Not exactly the same thing or same scale.[/b][/quote]You misunderstand, Chip. The U.S. would not have invaded Greneda (among other military incursions we've been involved in) without [i]already[/i] having commitments from U.S. businesses to invest/build in the country. All this was planned for [i]prior[/i] to the invasion. [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] Private companies are better suited to that task. Where is Halliburton going to get "private money" to rebuild Iraq?[/b][/quote]I already mentioned I know nothing of Halliburton. You'd have to ask them where they're getting the money. Of course, they aren't going to tell you. Hell, they won't tell me either. ;) [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] So continue to flame away at big corporations. I shall.[/b][/quote]That was tongue-in-cheek, Chip. You did notice I agreed with you that most of them deserve it. [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] assume they're simply greedy for assisting the gov't to stabilize Iraq after the war. The point is that A) Cheney has a nice cushy $35 million retirement from Halliburton and B) Halliburton/KBR makes a LOT of money from "rebuilding" after such things, and stands to make more from the Iraq situation. They're not ASSISTING the government, they are making a LARGE PROFIT off of it. A corporation does not do something out of the kindness of it's virtual heart, it will only move if there's a profit involved. That a company so closely tied to making a profit from global disputes is connected to the Vice President of the United States should give most people a bit of a reason to question what motives are involved. [/b][/quote]Certainly they want a payoff. But in these cases, the gov't puts a lot of pressure on companies to help them achieve their (the gov't's) goals. That deserves some compensation, no? As for the whole, "Central Asia" and references to Abrams tanks, while I'm sure Halliburton's ad will directly affect Iraq, I'd say there is overwhelming evidence to indicate they would set up shop in any number of "-stans" in which the American military already has a presence. Pretty much every one in [url=http://www.atlapedia.com/online/map_images/physical/Kaz_etc_phy.jpg]this map[/url] has a U.S. military presence. This is no secret. Although we have no bases in Kazakhstan, we do in Uzbekistan and others. [url=http://www.cacianalyst.org/2002-07-03/20020703_KAZAKHSTAN_MILITARY_BASES.htm]This informative website[/url] indicates that U.S. bases in Kazakhstan are a probability. More in keeping up with the Jones's (Uzbekistan) than for altruistic, stop Al-Queda and Saddam reasons. So Central Asia is, proabably, exactly where they intend to set up shop.

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b] Lee, your take on this is incredibly sadistic. Basically what I'm hearing you tell me is that the goal is to toxify an oil rich country's air so that we can clean up ours. [/b][/quote]Well, I don't think the way you state it is the "goal" so much as it is the end result. The companies don't go over there WANTING to wreak havoc on the environment, they just think that it's necessary in order to do what they think is a good thing - increase that country's GNP while increasing their own profits as well. And also giving their Western customers what they want - a "non polluting" energy source. In any case, it's nothing that hasn't been done before and is still being done today, even within our own borders. Much of the hazardous, polluting stuff that is used in manufacturing the things we like to buy, is emitted and/or dumped in areas where the residents are poor and unlikely to complain - or need the money. Like Augusta. :D Back when there was a big push for converting the U.S. to nuclear power, for example, several power companies began mining for uranium on Indian reservations. That Indians were dying of cancer and being born with birth defects wasn't supposed to be a concern for any of the rest of us. And we already have a history over the past 50 years of going into Third World countries "to help them develop" when in fact the companies involved are only exploiting the poorest people of those countries - polluting their air, land and water, decimating forests and farmland, creating health hazards in factories and turning the other way when the local foremen employ child labor or force people to work long hours in unhealthy conditions. Check out the U.S. owned shoe factories in Malaysia, to name one current example. Nobody likes to think much about how the stuff we like to buy is made, and at what cost to other humans and the environment. I can assure you that if everything we owned had to be manufactured locally in our own back yards, we'd think twice about whether much of it was really worth it.

[thisDude]

This isn't new. In the 1950's the CIA staged a coup in Guatemala to overthrow a democratically elected president because he wanted to return a portion of the farmlands controlled by United Fruit Co.(sold as chiquita bananas all over the world) back to the local Guatemalan farmers. One of the Dulles brothers was the head of the CIA at the time and the other was CEO of United Fruit. The CIA orchestrated the coup as a bloodless media event, but the reality is that the guy they put in charge tortured and murdered tens of thousands of people (backed by special ops green berets). If you count all the dissidents who disapeared, estimates reach into the hundreds of thousands. War is a business.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]You misunderstand, Chip. The U.S. would not have invaded Greneda (among other military incursions we've been involved in) without [i]already[/i] having commitments from U.S. businesses to invest/build in the country. All this was planned for [i]prior[/i] to the invasion.[/b][/quote]I do not misunderstand. It was not as big of an event as this and it did not require taking out ads in newspapers to find the resources to fulfil a contract. [b]I already mentioned I know nothing of Halliburton. [/b] Well then that defeats the point of this. Just do a search for "Cheney Iraq". [b]Certainly they want a payoff. But in these cases, the gov't puts a lot of pressure on companies to help them achieve their (the gov't's) goals. That deserves some compensation, no?[/b] Not when it can be done with already existing services, and more cheaply. That's beside the point, though - the problem is that there is a conflict of interests when the VP's former company stands to make money from strife and turmoil in the world relative to the U.S.. [b]overwhelming evidence to indicate they would set up shop in any number of "-stans" in which the American military already has a presence. [/b] Haliburton already has their hands in just about every skirmish-oriented place on the planet, but this kind of thing is not just a handout to Turkmenistan or some such. [b]So Central Asia is, proabably, exactly where they intend to set up shop.[/b] I disagree. We'll see.

[Mats Olsson.]

I suppose there's still no intent of signing the Kyoto agreement... /Mats

[Lee Flier]

Hell, no, Mats. And that fact is further support for my argument. If Pres. Bush supports hydrogen, and hydrogen is a "clean burning fuel" that contributes nothing to greenhouse gases, then why wouldn't he want to sign the treaty? Like I said, I've been involved in alternate energy for years, and the way hydrogen has been hyped over the past decade or so, vs. the reality of how it works, has made me feel that it's being set up as a "hide the pollution" kind of shell game for the oil companies. This seems to be exactly where things are heading now. The fact is that oil will not last forever. You know, if everybody in China were to buy a refrigerator tomorrow, the world's oil supply would be decimated instantly. We are staking our international relations, and going to war, over an economic/technological system that cannot possibly last in the long term, and in the short term may well destroy us. We need a real visionary in the White House, one who sees the big picture and is willing to invest in the long term future of the world, not someone who is only interested in protecting the status quo.