Talk:Kellogg, Brown and Root
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
129.252.142.30, can you provide some links to back up the KB - Lyndon Johnson link? Also, if Coke was so popular (Stevenson that is ;) you might wanna start writing an article about him. Oh, and for communication purposes it would be cool if you logged in... Guaka 13:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm not the poster of the original text, but this page http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/8129_comment.php mentions the Lyndon Johnson connection.
The links between LBJ and KBR (formerly BR) in this article are described in the opening pages of volume one of Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power. I'm pretty sure that the connections are further developed in the book, but I haven't read that far yet. Scimb235, 08:47 (PDT), 9/27/04
Contents[hide] |
[edit] B+R LBJ connection
Read pp. 23-32 of Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism by Bruce J. Schulman - another acadmically-reputable biography - for further corroboration of this link.
[edit] "Burn & Loot"
"Brown & Root was derided as 'Burn & Loot'", that's pretty funny. But shouldn't you Loot & then Burn? Why would anyone loot something burned? Just my two cents. And who's Kellogg? I didn't hear a word about him. - Jerryseinfeld 20:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Reputable sources have been cited, so I took off the NPOV tag. Andrewbadr 19:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Iraq
"The firm was importing Kuwaiti oil for 23 eurocents a liter, which shouldn't have cost the U.S. government no more than 60 eurocents according to experts. The U.S. was selling this oil for 3,400 eurocents a liter."
I don't understand. Shouldn't the verb in the last sentence be "was buying" instad of "was selling" ??? yes indeed
[edit] Article title (proposed move)
If the company is now known as KBR, and is no longer Kellogg, Brown and Root, should the article be moved to KBR (company)? --Scott Davis Talk 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
I have put up an infobox but could people edit it accordingly please
[edit] Regional slang?
Is "fired with effect" the UK version of what is called "fired for cause" (violation of contract/policy, or something along those lines) in the US? If so, let's find a compromise term which is meaningful on both sides of the ocean.
"fired with effect from 31st March 2005" simply means that the employees lost their jobs on that date 82.41.15.121 17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
I won't be back on here for a while so here's just a suggestion: With all the mentions of controversy, we could possibly take all of that out, (except for link and comment), and put it under a LOGCAP entry all it's own. It detracts from the operations around the world that the company does and focuses the attention on one location and its financial issues rather than what the company actually does. I could easily do it and come up with a lot of verifiable references but I'd rather toss that out here first for your review. Lightertack 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just have to say that KBR nor Halliburton have anything to do with oil in Iraq or any other country. All these two companies do is build and help maintain the militaries infastructure. That is it NO OIL! GZUS96 21:14, 6 Nov. 2006 (side note: obviously this guy is 96 years old, but not senile)
GZUS96, well..no..thats not true at all. Halliburton and KBR both are in the oil business. Halliburton is one of the largest providers of oil production infrastructure in the world. Dubai was built mostly by Halliburtons oil infrastructure. Offshore oil rigs, they make those. Refineries, those too. Halliburton has the single most extensive oil/drilling/refinment research campus of all petrochemical companies. KBR was on the RIO contract--thats oil..as mentioned in this Wiki article. KBR does oil and LNG work all over the world to this day.Lightertack 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed text
IP address 64.154.26.251 used the <s> and </s> tags to strike out a paragraph from the article. Text prior to my removing said paragraph was:
- <s>On October 9th 2006 it was reported "Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants.""[http://www.alternet.org/rights/42458/] including US citizens since the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]] empowers Bush to declare not just aliens which means anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. It claims that Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables.</s> '''The above text and reference provided are unverifiable.'''
Striking out text like that doesn't seem to be the correct way of doing things; the talk page should be used to discuss controversial sections from the article. Carre 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Text Removal
The following text is wholly inaccurate and mixes several seperated concepts and contracts, it has been removed:
In the competition for the current LOGCAP contract, the Army Corps of Engineers asked competitors to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq. The Army chose KBR's plan in November 2001, though it remains classified. On March 24, 2003, the Army announced publicly that KBR had been awarded five task orders in Iraq potentially worth $7 billion to implement the plan. One of the task orders, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, required KBR to "procure, import and deliver" fuels to Iraq. In fact, the contract was awarded more than two weeks earlier, without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to Congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances. They also said that the contract's classified status prevented open bidding.
Extinguishing the fires had nothing to do with LOGCAP, that was the RIO contract; Restore Iraqi Oil. Nothing to do with the same funding or staffing as LOGCAP, (which WAS put out for bid). The other big 'misinformation' is about the Task Orders being put out w/out bidding. Thats exactly what happens...task orders have nothing to do with contract awarding---they are nothing more than added operations and government authorized expendatures under a contract that's already awarded---hence it being illegal to put them out for bidding.
[edit] Libyan HIV case
I don't see it mentioned:
"An official investigation concluded that the infections had been concentrated in the wards where the Bulgarian nurses had been assigned. Dozens of Bulgarian medical workers were arrested, and a videotaped search of one nurse’s apartment turned up vials of H.I.V.-tainted blood.
According to a Libyan intelligence report submitted to the court, the nurse, Kristiyana Vulcheva, later confessed that the vials were given to her by a British friend who was working for the KBR subsidiary of Halliburton at the time. The nurse was quoted in the report as saying that she and her colleagues used the vials to infect the children." [1] — Omegatron 18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
