Thursday, May 22, 2008

Halliburton denies involvement in Iraq?...please

It makes me want to puke hearing claims that the US oil and gas company Halliburton denied having any more links with the pillaging and plunder of Iraq's oil. All said and done, how come cases relating to the company are still being heard and pending?

You see, it is not whether Halliburton has ended all kinds of involvement with is about what they have done through the years while there. Those were years soaked in the blood, sweat and tears of the Iraqi people. Now that it has 'ended' its links over there , we hear of Halliburton coming to Malaysia's Iskandar Development Region to invest using what the world see as money tainted by the sufferings and anguish of the Iraqis.

Within such a scenario are Malaysians so forgiving as to sell their soul for the sake of foreign investment?

Ponder this:

"...The arrival of Dick Cheney as CEO in 1995 was, by far, the best decision Halliburton ever made. Under Cheney's tenure as CEO, Halliburton's revenue from federal government contracts nearly doubled. Government-backed loans from the Export-Import bank increased from $100 million to $1.5 billion. The company became the 18th-largest defense contractor, in terms of revenue, whereas before Cheney's arrival the company was the 73rd largest contractor.

Halliburton saw its revenue increase 30 percent to $16 billion in 2003, largely because of its military contracts in the middle east. Halliburton was the number one U.S. Army contractor in 2003 with the total value of its Army contracts valued at $3,731,725,648. Dan Briody, in his book The Halliburton Agenda, described Halliburton's relationship with Cheney as "the embodiment of the Iron Triangle, the nexus of the government, military, and big business that President Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell speech..."