On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:44:00 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

...former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney:



KBR Tells U.S. Army it will Cost $500 Million and Take 13 Years to Close
out Its Iraq Contract

The recipient of the largest government services contract in U.S.
history has told military officials it will take another 13 years and
half a billion dollars to finish off its work stemming from the Iraq war.

This assessment from KBR Inc., which won the $38 billion deal from the
U.S. Army way back in 2001, is at the heart of a legal battle between
the two sides.


KBR was responsible for aiding virtually all American military support
operations as part of the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
III in Iraq.


With the conflict over and the pullout of combat units, the Pentagon
sought to alter the terms of payment for the remainder of the contract.
U.S. Defense Department officials want to pay KBR a fixed amount for
what’s left to do (which could save it hundreds of millions of dollars),
while the company wants to be reimbursed for its efforts, which has been
the case since the deal was arranged last decade.


The Army’s move to implement the change prompted KBR to sue in court,
where its lawyers argued that the remaining duties will cost $500
million and take 13 years to complete.


Emails exchanged between the two sides were presented as part of the
litigation, allowing Charles Tiefer, professor of government contracting
at the University of Baltimore and a member of the Commission on Wartime
Contracting, to review them.


His take on the communications?


“The emails show things have gotten very nasty between KBR and the
Defense Department,� Tiefer told the Federal Times.


“The emails show that the Defense Department, in its dealings with KBR,
feels like it’s wrestling with a giant python,� he added. “The kind of
willingness to work with KBR that you saw for a number of years during
the Iraq War has completely gone.�

- - -

Wow. KBR ought to go into the banking and stock brokerage business...


The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left 20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel joined
up because of the money.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:

The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left 20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good
for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be
there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel
joined
up because of the money.

----------------------------------------------------------

I continue to find it incredulous that so many people or businesses
engaged in providing a service or product for profit is doing so due
to "greed" according to you. The goal of any person or business
should be to earn more money than they spend. In personal finances,
the extra can be applied to improvements in life style, education of
family members and a nest egg for retirement. In business it affords
growth, expansion, higher employment and job security. Some do it
better than others, but without profits, we all may as well let the
government define what standard of living is allowed, what education
we receive, what health care is enough and what is a socially
acceptable retirement income. Maybe that's your idea of utopia, but
it's certainly not mine.

On 5/17/13 8:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:

The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left 20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel joined
up because of the money.

----------------------------------------------------------

I continue to find it incredulous that so many people or businesses
engaged in providing a service or product for profit is doing so due to
"greed" according to you. The goal of any person or business should be
to earn more money than they spend. In personal finances, the extra can
be applied to improvements in life style, education of family members
and a nest egg for retirement. In business it affords growth,
expansion, higher employment and job security. Some do it better than
others, but without profits, we all may as well let the government
define what standard of living is allowed, what education we receive,
what health care is enough and what is a socially acceptable retirement
income. Maybe that's your idea of utopia, but it's certainly not mine.



The topic started out with an example of how a private contractor was
trying to screw the federal government out of billions of dollars.
"Greed" would be a mild descriptor.

It then devolved to the "contractors" who went to Iraq to make more
money than they could guarding buildings than they could at home, and
how some of those non-military personnel are getting killed.

My comment was that these non-military contractors were there for the
big bucks, and that getting killed was part of their equation. That's a
lot different than the motivation for a typical soldier, who isn't
enlisting for "the big bucks."

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/17/13 8:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:

The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left 20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good
for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be
there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to
take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel
joined
up because of the money.

----------------------------------------------------------

I continue to find it incredulous that so many people or businesses
engaged in providing a service or product for profit is doing so due
to
"greed" according to you. The goal of any person or business
should be
to earn more money than they spend. In personal finances, the extra
can
be applied to improvements in life style, education of family
members
and a nest egg for retirement. In business it affords growth,
expansion, higher employment and job security. Some do it better
than
others, but without profits, we all may as well let the government
define what standard of living is allowed, what education we
receive,
what health care is enough and what is a socially acceptable
retirement
income. Maybe that's your idea of utopia, but it's certainly not
mine.



The topic started out with an example of how a private contractor was
trying to screw the federal government out of billions of dollars.
"Greed" would be a mild descriptor.

It then devolved to the "contractors" who went to Iraq to make more
money than they could guarding buildings than they could at home, and
how some of those non-military personnel are getting killed.

My comment was that these non-military contractors were there for the
big bucks, and that getting killed was part of their equation. That's
a
lot different than the motivation for a typical soldier, who isn't
enlisting for "the big bucks."

-------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that how a person or private contractor earns money is
their business as long as it's lawful. Obviously a contract with the
government was involved. If you feel the contractors are "greedy"
maybe the fault lies with whatever government agency signed the
contract.

Personally, if I were to consider going to Iraq as a private
contractor for hire and risk my life, I'd only do it for BIG bucks.
But I wouldn't do it. You couldn't pay me enough.

On 5/17/13 8:34 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/17/13 8:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:

The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left 20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel joined
up because of the money.

----------------------------------------------------------

I continue to find it incredulous that so many people or businesses
engaged in providing a service or product for profit is doing so due to
"greed" according to you. The goal of any person or business should be
to earn more money than they spend. In personal finances, the extra can
be applied to improvements in life style, education of family members
and a nest egg for retirement. In business it affords growth,
expansion, higher employment and job security. Some do it better than
others, but without profits, we all may as well let the government
define what standard of living is allowed, what education we receive,
what health care is enough and what is a socially acceptable retirement
income. Maybe that's your idea of utopia, but it's certainly not mine.



The topic started out with an example of how a private contractor was
trying to screw the federal government out of billions of dollars.
"Greed" would be a mild descriptor.

It then devolved to the "contractors" who went to Iraq to make more
money than they could guarding buildings than they could at home, and
how some of those non-military personnel are getting killed.

My comment was that these non-military contractors were there for the
big bucks, and that getting killed was part of their equation. That's a
lot different than the motivation for a typical soldier, who isn't
enlisting for "the big bucks."

-------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that how a person or private contractor earns money is their
business as long as it's lawful. Obviously a contract with the
government was involved. If you feel the contractors are "greedy" maybe
the fault lies with whatever government agency signed the contract.

Personally, if I were to consider going to Iraq as a private contractor
for hire and risk my life, I'd only do it for BIG bucks. But I
wouldn't do it. You couldn't pay me enough.





I think the government ought to terminate the contract with KBR on 90
days notice, and let the contractors sue. Screw 'em.

As for the private guards who go to Iraq for the big bucks, as I stated,
they are going there for the money and if they get killed, it isn't as
if they were military volunteers who went there. I don't feel a sense of
loss or sorrow for the moneygrubbing paramilitary types if they come
home in a box.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/17/13 8:34 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/17/13 8:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:

The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left
20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good
for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover
in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be
there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to
take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel
joined
up because of the money.

----------------------------------------------------------

I continue to find it incredulous that so many people or businesses
engaged in providing a service or product for profit is doing so
due to
"greed" according to you. The goal of any person or business
should be
to earn more money than they spend. In personal finances, the
extra can
be applied to improvements in life style, education of family
members
and a nest egg for retirement. In business it affords growth,
expansion, higher employment and job security. Some do it better
than
others, but without profits, we all may as well let the government
define what standard of living is allowed, what education we
receive,
what health care is enough and what is a socially acceptable
retirement
income. Maybe that's your idea of utopia, but it's certainly not
mine.



The topic started out with an example of how a private contractor
was
trying to screw the federal government out of billions of dollars.
"Greed" would be a mild descriptor.

It then devolved to the "contractors" who went to Iraq to make more
money than they could guarding buildings than they could at home,
and
how some of those non-military personnel are getting killed.

My comment was that these non-military contractors were there for
the
big bucks, and that getting killed was part of their equation.
That's a
lot different than the motivation for a typical soldier, who isn't
enlisting for "the big bucks."

-------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that how a person or private contractor earns money is
their
business as long as it's lawful. Obviously a contract with the
government was involved. If you feel the contractors are "greedy"
maybe
the fault lies with whatever government agency signed the contract.

Personally, if I were to consider going to Iraq as a private
contractor
for hire and risk my life, I'd only do it for BIG bucks. But I
wouldn't do it. You couldn't pay me enough.





I think the government ought to terminate the contract with KBR on 90
days notice, and let the contractors sue. Screw 'em.

As for the private guards who go to Iraq for the big bucks, as I
stated,
they are going there for the money and if they get killed, it isn't as
if they were military volunteers who went there. I don't feel a sense
of
loss or sorrow for the moneygrubbing paramilitary types if they come
home in a box.

-----------------------------------

Interesting. Many of the paramilitary types are former military types
who can't find employment back at home.
I'd have a sense of sorrow for anyone who got killed trying to do
their job.

As for KBR contracts, most major government contracts have
termination clauses in them. I used to deal with them in both direct
government contracts and in contracts with major defense contractors
like Raytheon, Lockheed and others. The termination clauses are
typically not negotiable as they are structured for the convenience of
the government. Heck, even a simple thing like my military
obligation was extended for two months beyond my "contract" for "the
convenience of the government". I wasn't too happy about that but
there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. So, it works both
ways.

On 5/17/13 8:53 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message


I think the government ought to terminate the contract with KBR on 90
days notice, and let the contractors sue. Screw 'em.

As for the private guards who go to Iraq for the big bucks, as I stated,
they are going there for the money and if they get killed, it isn't as
if they were military volunteers who went there. I don't feel a sense of
loss or sorrow for the moneygrubbing paramilitary types if they come
home in a box.

-----------------------------------

Interesting. Many of the paramilitary types are former military types
who can't find employment back at home.
I'd have a sense of sorrow for anyone who got killed trying to do their
job.

I'd of course feel a loss if and when these paramilitary contractors
were engaged in humanitarian efforts, such as guarding a convoy of
supplies heading to a clinic, or a convoy of food heading to a village.
or guarding a hospital.

On 5/17/13 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:42:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I think the government ought to terminate the contract with KBR on 90
days notice, and let the contractors sue. Screw 'em.

And put our military people back in there to keep the place stable?



The place isn't stable and won't be.

On 5/17/13 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:57:25 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:


The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left 20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel joined
up because of the money.

greed? now being paid is greed? People join the military for the same
reason they become firemen, police or teachers. It is a job they can
get with their qualifications. They become contractors because the pay
is a bit better usually because of their military training.
If folks like you had not ended the draft, we would not need contract
soldiers.


I didn't end the draft. The draft was terminated during a Republican
administration. I protested the war against Vietnam, but never the draft.

On 5/17/2013 12:02 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/17/13 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:57:25 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/16/13 11:20 PM, wrote:


The thing most people don't know or chose to ignore is that our
withdrawal from Iraq was only the DoD people. We left 20,000-30,000
"contractors" there to do what the military was doing. It is good for
the government because dead contractors don't come home to Dover in
flag draped coffins.
It is not any cheaper tho.

I suppose the real question is whether we have any reason to be there
in the first place.



Many of the "contractors" are in Iraq because of greed, and nothing
more. If they come home dead, it is because they were willing to take
the risk for the money. I doubt most uniformed military personnel joined
up because of the money.

greed? now being paid is greed? People join the military for the same
reason they become firemen, police or teachers. It is a job they can
get with their qualifications. They become contractors because the pay
is a bit better usually because of their military training.
If folks like you had not ended the draft, we would not need contract
soldiers.


I didn't end the draft. The draft was terminated during a Republican
administration. I protested the war against Vietnam, but never the draft.

In what manner did you protest?