WHEN IS ANYONE GOING TO ADDRESS HALLIBURTON CITY?

[Atman]

I posted this the other day, and got FOUR responses. It is the big-ass elephant in the room everyone is ignoring. The Super Embassy. That is why we're there, and why this is still going on. This isn't a building, or an embassy...it is a CITY on Iraq soil, and it isn't finished yet. Our troops are being used as private security guards for BushCo/Halliburton's massive, MASSIVE, construction project, which no one -- NO ONE, not even KO, is mentioning. Bush and the neocons are stalling for time until we have finished our own "embassy."

Now, think about the attacks on the Iranian consulate today, and all the outcry...it is a sovereign. Which, legally, will be the case with our Super Embassy, Halliburton City, once it is complete. A US Nation State right in the Iraqi desert.



EDIT, to add the pic from post #7.

Why does NO ONE talk about this???????????

[MadMaddie]

1. It is an important topic and I saw it..

At this point I think that the Embassy will be a target for the militias, insurgents and anyone else that hates America....

They will spend more time defending those bricks than anything else productive...

[CrazyOrangeCat]

2. Some very top-secret crap.

I started seeing pictures of it here on DU last March, I think. Otherwise I'd never have known.

As another DU'er mentioned today, it's the "Oil Embassy".

[wordpix]

3. Halliburton Oil Embassy is right. Just proves OIL IS the reason BushCo went to war & is

willing to go to Iran next. These oil barons will do ANYTHING to keep the untapped oil reserves for themselves even as they swim in the profits they've gouged from us.

I agree, we MUST talk about this since OIL CITY is the reason we're in the ME and Iraq

[PreacherCasey]

4. do you have links to additional info? eom

[dog_lovin_dem]

37. I googled

U.S. Embassy, Iraq and came up with 3,320,000 results. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm - 37k
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2162249,00.html
www.washtimes.com/world/20060423-122454-5409r.htm

Hope these work!

[The Wielding Truth]

5. I've been mentioning this from time to time,too. Renegade government

run by greedy,lying super big business. We are all incensed by these corrupt fools.

[Initech]

6. I bet it's being built so that...

Bush and Cheney will have a place to hide so they don't get incarcerated once they leave office.

[Avalux]

7. Bigger than Vatican City; here's a pic -

Supposed to be completed this year.

[karlrschneider]

64. That picture is phony. Sorry. I'm not faulting the report but this image

is just way way too bogus. :eyes:

[Atman]

65. Except that you've been provided with dozens of links to back it up

Roll them eyes, baby, and go post it the lounge about Brittany's tits.

You could have spent TWO MINUTES of research on this and found there is nothing phony about the pictures. And since you found the whole thing so incredible, you only served to underscore my point...amazing, bizarro shit is going on over there that we ARE NOT being told about.

.

[karlrschneider]

67. We don't help our cause by circulating impossible images.

Take another look at that "picture". The cranes are all in the foreground, not anywhere close to the obviously completed buildings. They aren't even the right kind of cranes for the type of construction shown there. I know about the big 'embassy' but let's not get nucking futs like the "controlled demolition-WTC" screwballs. And I don't give a shit about Brittany's (whoever that is) tits.

[Atman]

68. So all the links to all the stories in major, credible sources, mean nothing?

Thanks for your input. Now I know it's worthless.

.

[karlrschneider]

72. One question for you, if you don't mind: Do you subscribe to the 'controlled demolition"

theory on the WTC 9/11? It's a simple yes or no question. Thanks.

[Atman]

79. I suppose it depends upon which "theory" you're talking about

Yes, there is a 9/11.

It follows 9/10, but precedes 9/12.

And had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Look, I'm SHOCKED...DUers are the FIRST I've heard to even argue about this. It has been published many times before, as the plethora of links indicate. Why are you so against the possibility of my post being factual? You're sitting at one of the most powerful research tools ever presented to mankind...use it.

.

[karlrschneider]

81. You're a bullshitter. You will not answer a simple question.

I rest my case.

[Stephanie]

84. you're irrational

I don't get it - is this some lounge feud that's irrelevant to the OP?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karlrschneider]

86. Nope, I asked a simple question. Not to you, by the way.

Since you chose to barge in, why don't YOU answer it?

[Stephanie]

88. because it's irrelevant

completely irrelevant

[karlrschneider]

93. No, it is not irrelevent, it goes to motive. Call your attorney if you don't grasp the concept.

...

[Stephanie]

95. what?

I'm really baffled now. Motive for WHAT?

[LSK]

166. which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue

:wtf:

[Little Wing]

190. Your question is irrelevant. In fact its only value is exposing you as scraping

for a way out.

[Stephanie]

69. hello?

read my post below this one

[karlrschneider]

77. I did. Was not impressed...sorry.

...

[mainegreen]

134. Out of curiosity, why would cranes be near completed buildings?

And not say near where new building were to be built? Honestly, looking at the photo it looks like the buildings in the background are pre-existing apartment blocks and the cranes are on a yet undeveloped plot of land. There is no extraneous data in the image indicating any pass through adobe, no weird artifacts in the image and the cranes scale correctly and correctly cover or are covered by ground vegitation based on their distance in the picture. The plants, from what you can make out in the image are not North American. This picture is not doctored. Of course, this picture could be of any one of about 100,000 construction sites in the world, but it is not doctored.

:shrug:

[cdnwannabe]

195. Did it occur to anyone that the tower cranes could just be....

waiting to be used somewhere else? If they were being used in this location before, maybe they are just waiting to be utilized somewhere else? Is that too hard to fathom?

[Atman]

196. What is so hard to fathom about READING THE LINKS?

This isn't fantasy, as I've stated. I never asked IF we were building this city, WE ARE. NO ONE DENIES IT except a few in this thread. The question was, WHY ISN'T IT BEING TALKED ABOUT when everyone keeps asking "where has all the money gone?" and "why are we still there!"

.

[Stephanie]

66. Here is the story at MSNBC where the photo was found >>>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

New U.S. Embassy in Iraq cloaked in mystery
Baghdad locale, slated to be completed in 2007, to be largest of its kind


Construction cranes loom above the site of the new U.S. Embassy being built in Baghdad. The embassy will sit on 104 acres, six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York and two-thirds the acreage of Washington’s National Mall.


Updated: 5:45 p.m. ET April 14, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

“We can’t talk about it. Security reasons,” Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

A British tabloid even told readers the location was being kept secret — news that would surprise Baghdadis who for months have watched the forest of construction cranes at work across the winding Tigris, at the very center of their city and within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days.

The embassy complex — 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report — is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified “Green Zone,” just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein’s, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial.

The Republican Palace, where U.S. Embassy functions are temporarily housed in cubicles among the chandelier-hung rooms, is less than a mile away in the 4-square-mile zone, an enclave of American and Iraqi government offices and lodgings ringed by miles of concrete barriers.

5,500 employees at the embassy
The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the embassy, almost half listed as security, are far more numerous than at any other U.S. mission worldwide. They rarely venture out into the “Red Zone,” that is, violence-torn Iraq.

This huge American contingent at the center of power has drawn criticism.

“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.

State Department spokesman Justin Higgins defended the size of the embassy, old and new, saying it’s indicative of the work facing the United States here.

“It’s somewhat self-evident that there’s going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the U.S. government in all forms for several years,” he said in Washington.

Higgins noted that large numbers of non-diplomats work at the mission — hundreds of military personnel and dozens of FBI agents, for example, along with representatives of the Agriculture, Commerce and other U.S. federal departments.

They sleep in hundreds of trailers or “containerized” quarters scattered around the Green Zone. But next year embassy staff will move into six apartment buildings in the new complex, which has been under construction since mid-2005 with a target completion date of June 2007.

Iraq’s interim government transferred the land to U.S. ownership in October 2004, under an agreement whose terms were not disclosed.

“Embassy Baghdad” will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy’s 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington’s National Mall.

Estimated cost of over $1 billion
Original cost estimates ranged over $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project’s “classified” portion — the actual embassy offices.

Higgins declined to identify those builders, citing security reasons, but said five were American companies.

The designs aren’t publicly available, but the Senate report makes clear it will be a self-sufficient and “hardened” domain, to function in the midst of Baghdad power outages, water shortages and continuing turmoil.

It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewater-treatment facility, “systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities,” says the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.

Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building.

Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says.

Higgins said the work, under way on all parts of the project, is more than one-third complete.

[karlrschneider]

70. Sorry, I'm not buying this photoshop. Those 6 cranes (I've seen 7 or 8 in other 'pictures')

could not POSSIBLY be genuine as shown. They're CLEARLY very much too close to the 'camera' to be of any use in construction of what are obviously topped out if not complete buildings. And why would they all be sitting in a virtual straight line? THAT makes no sense at all. jeezus...
:eyes:

[Stephanie]

73. oh for god's sakes

you think MSNBC photoshopped this? for what purpose?

[karlrschneider]

75. Oh my goodness, of course not. M$NBC would never do anything like that.

:eyes:

[Stephanie]

76. for what purpose?

please explain.

[karlrschneider]

78. M$NBC gets images from thousands of sources. Just like DU does.

They happily circulated the 'Saddam Statue Toppling' shots as if they were genuine. I don't give a shit about the allegations here, I DO believe Bushco is building a huge 'embassy' but I object to using bogus 'photos' (which can and will eventually be shown phony) as 'evidence.'


Take another look at that 'photograph' and tell me how the purported scene is physically possible. It isn't.

[Stephanie]

87. the photo is credited to the Associated Press

familiar with them? the AP?

[Atman]

89. Do you work for MSNBC?

I'm just...stunned.

I really don't get you. You could answer all your own questions with two minutes of research using that machine in front of you which you're currently using to trash other DUers.

.

[karlrschneider]

102. I'm a very public person. I use my REAL name here. I don't hide behind

a 'handle'. My email is [e-mail]

I only 'trash' DUers when they're wrong, mistaken, stupid, bullheaded idiots, or tinfoil morons.

Some DUers have virtually empty profiles. Or so I've noticed.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karlrschneider]

108. I looked at them. Not bad for a 7th grader.

I probably won't do the PAYPAL beg though...

[Stephanie]

109. I just don't get it - what are you alleging, exactly?

Do you think secret Freepers snuck onto DU to post bogus photos of the new U.S. embassy in Iraq? And what would be the point of that, exactly? If it's to the benefit of Bushco somehow, I am not seeing it. Please explain.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

110. I thought the point you were making was about being anonymous???

But I guess not. It's about proving to the rest of DU what a raging dick you are.

Point taken.

.

[smoogatz]

177. You're jumping to a false conclusion here, obviously.

You seem to be laboring under the mis-impression that the buildings in the background are part of the embassy. I don't believe that's the case--they look like pretty standard Saddam-era apartment blocks to me, complete with mature plantings of palm trees, etc. The new embassy buildings--or their foundations--appear to be blocked from view by the earthen berm in the foreground. The picture is striking in that it shows a number of large cranes, indicating considerable work underway. The buildings in the background aren't its subject. Sheesh.

[Stephanie]

80. and what about Common Dreams - are they in on it?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0415-07.htm

And U.S.A. Today too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm

What about The Nation?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/howl

[Atman]

90. Yeah...it's all a big-ass scam!

I

am

so

blown

away...

[karlrschneider]

92. I subscribe to "The Nation". They never published that 'picture'

either in print or in your link. The others are the exact SAME image. Nobody knows where it came from.
I often bang my head on the desk when I see DUers willing to accept any goofy thing that supports their position...not really different from Freepers who seize on any ephemeral 'evidence' they perceive to bolster -their- (generally wrong) position.

[Stephanie]

94. it came from the ASSOCIATED PRESS

What are you talking about?

[karlrschneider]

96. Oh, well, THERE's an unimpeachable source...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :sarcasm:

[Atman]

99. Yeah...it's so flattering to BushCo that they never would have challeneged...

...it's veracity.

Karl...you're nuts!!
.

[Stephanie]

100. okay, you tell me, what is a legitimate source, in your opinion?

I'm really curious. Or would you need to fly to Baghdad to see for yourself? Because we might be able to arrange that.

[Morereason]

205. The picture is before the building began folks!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a real picture of the site... BEFORE the building began. They probably have not been allowed to take (or circulate) pictures since.

"Construction cranes loom above the site of the new U.S. Embassy being built in Baghdad. The embassy will sit on 104 acres, six times larger than the United Nations compound "

Above the site.... a picture before the building had occurred. Duh. No "conspiracy" here. Move on

[truedelphi]

209. Peoplekeep telling methat there are a few good people at AP

But the articles I read say "Up is down; black is white; long is short, etc

Anything the military BIG OIL or banking industry needs them to say

[Atman]

83. So what if that picture is a fake?

I DIDN'T POST IT.

This is NOT new. What the fuck is wrong with you people? This has been documented in so many sources, many of which are linked in this thread. WTF? This is REAL.

At this nanosecond in time I FUCKING HATE DU.

.

[Radio_Lady]

168. There is one remedy for your upset.

You said, "At this nanosecond in time I FUCKING HATE DU."

You can always leave the DU if people here are bothering you so much.

Frankly, I don't care whether the photo is real or fake. In my opinion, your attack methodology makes me believe YOU are the problem in this thread.

Go figure. At least your attacks got you the "thread count" you lacked the last time you brought this up.

[Flying Dream Blues]

169. I agree, Radio Lady. This is what the new feature was designed for IMHO.

[Atman]

172. You're just itchin' to see if you can get someone to ignore you, aren't you?

Wow.

Not me, though. I'm not using the new feature. I like to hear what everyone has to say, even when they're acting like an ass!

.

[smoogatz]

181. I plan to use it early and often.

At first I thought it was a really stupid idea, and would result in massive "ignore wars" and the balkanization of DU into separate and mutually hostile mini-fora. But this thread and others have convinced me that that's not such a bad thing, really.

[Atman]

184. I'm just stunned that THIS subject has caused such a riff!

I wouldn't have guessed it in a million years. People "leaving," putting each other on ignore...and for what? What the hell was my op about? It was about where the money's gone, the "elephant in the room" no one in the MSM will discuss, and the apparent rationale for Bush's bizarre behavior.

Christ, you'd think I'd posted about a new iPod device or something!

Oh, wait...that was Wednesday...

;)

[Radio_Lady]

187. Hey, you got an audience of over 3,000 to look at it. It's the way I've always

stated... start throwing stones at everyone who challenges you and you draw a crowd. It also pays to chuck epithets at everyone who disagrees or who posts something different from what you believe. Bad language really pays off!

Hope you're happy! You should be! You even got the GREATEST vote (I voted last night because I thought the issue was important.)

In peace,

Radio_Lady

PS. Hey, everybody. I have nobody on IGNORE now and don't intend to put anyone there. On the other hand, feel free to do whatever you wish with my posts. Thanks...

[smoogatz]

188. Some people are always itching for a fight.

The subject doesn't matter. DU at its worst reminds me of the dinner table when I was a kid--bitter argument always the default mode. If I'd had an ignore button back then, I wouldn't have spoken to my father or my brother for the next fifteen years--and that would have been fine with me.

[Twist_U_Up]

200. some insight on the construction site

If you actually take the time to inspect the photo you will see that the work being done is in front of the existing buildings.

Notice that the cranes are staggered and set up to make a pick from anywhere on the job site.

Notice the hydraulic crane is extended almost to its max with a load.


Count the cranes. I count 7 with the 8th being just out of the picture to the left


If you dont see this you may need to reevaluate your picture compression skills.

[Atman]

8. 500 responses to my iPhone post...this? Meh...not so much...

Let's talk about Tweety and Scarborough and fall right into the trap the Cabal News is laying out. Distract us. Pretent Bush is showing "resolve." Or is "crazy." Impeachment.

BULLSHIT. It's all a fucking stall tactic. Bush is the front-man marketing guy for Halliburton, sent out in front of the cameras to give the happy talk while Halliburton City.

Remember, embassies are legally considered SOVEREIGN NATIONS. They need that fucker finished, because then they've established a US State in Iraq.

We're being played so fucking big-time it isn't even funny. Where is all the money? Look at the picture of the "embassy." That ain't free, baby. The so-called "pundits" every now and then feign a puzzled look and ask "where has all the money gone???" Yet have you EVER heard a one of them mention Halliburton City?

.

[Atman]

9. And it dies again...

Sheesh. The media's done a good job on us. Why doesn't anyone (present company excepted) appear to give a rat's ass about this?

.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

14. beats me.

i wonder if the newly elected dems even understand the implications of this "embassy".



any discussion of "leaving" Iraq becomes a little silly . . .

[Radio_Lady]

15. Doin' my best to give a good God-damn... but it's the first I've heard of this.

Links? Other people talking in other blogs?

It will only die from lack of follow-up.

Where did that photo come from? Story attached?

Thanks, buddy...

[Atman]

17. Really? That just underscores my point

We're being thrown every possible distraction to keep us from talking about this.

What do you think it costs to build an entire city from scratch, in one fell swoop? This place has a 600 unit apartment complex, and every modern amenity. Right in the heart of Iraq.

Please be aware, this is NOT the "Green Zone." This is an entirely seperate thing.

Again...we keep hearing senators pontificating and bloviating, "Where has all the money gone?" But has anyone asked what it costs you and me, Joe Taxpayer, to build a CITY from scratch?

.

[Radio_Lady]

19. Every good thought starts with one post. Frankly, if I google Halliburton City,

I come up pretty empty. Oh, there was one post from 2004 when I put quotations around "Halliburton City" ---

Where are you getting YOUR information?

[Atman]

21. I'm sorry..."Halliburton City" is a name I made up, it's not actually called that

I thought that part was obvious, but obviously not. My bad.

.

[Stephanie]

23. It's not obvious enough

You're not getting the point across because you need to spell it out more clearly. People don't know about this. You'd assume people here at least would, but most don't.

WE'RE BUILDING THE WORLD'S LARGEST EMBASSY IN IRAQ, BIGGER THAN VATICAN CITY.

[Atman]

25. Then help me to keep it kicked, please.

Once you understand the ramifications of this embassy, and the cost, everything else becomes clear. Does anyone really, seriously think Bush and Cheney are going to abandon this project just because the silly American voters are no longer fawning over them?

This embassy is what this war is about. I'd say that even OIL is secondary. It's all about establishing a nation-state in the middle east. And we're just not done yet. Bush is buying time until they turn the lights on.

.

[Radio_Lady]

24. Atman, I've tenaciously waded through your various websites. Please say what you mean.

I'm not saying this to BE MEAN, you understand. I'm on your side -- we know that the Republicans have planned permanent outposts in Iraq. I see a photo with four cranes -- that's it? If this is secret, what can we do to bring it to the foreground?

You seem to be talking to yourself on your message board.

Are you a comedian? You have a lot of jokes posted, and an ad for some kind of defogging spray... ha-ha.

I have to go to do some other mundane things now, then to bed.

Good night and good luck.

[Atman]

27. Pay no attention to my message board...

No one else does!

Actually, there is a hidden members only section that only shows up if you're registered, but even that hasn't seen much traffic since the last election. But it isn't about that. It isn't about my cartoons. It is about the embassy. And the fact that you and so many DUers don't even know about what we're doing there, that is what is so frightening to me.

Oh...and what the hell ad for "defogging spray" are you talking about? Are you sure you were on my site? I don't have anything about defogging sprays on my web site.

.

[Radio_Lady]

161. My last message to you, Atman.

Maybe I described it wrong as a "defogging" spray. Maybe I should have said, "protective" spray.

I went to http://www.notbannedyet.us

That defaulted to:

http://www.rmcgcreative.com/comics/nby/notbanned.php

I assume you are RMCG, right?

It isn't a defogging spray -- just looks like one. But there is some evidence of a spray bottle to keep you safe... humorous. Did you forget what you posted?

Judging from the cheeky messages posted since last night, you are spoiling for a fight with just about everybody. Nobody is as smart as you are or has the true message like you have. That's pretty ugly, Atman.

Good bye and good luck.

[Atman]

162. Oh, please.

Of course that's my site. I've had the URL in my sig line since day one. That is what I meant when I told Karl I wasn't anonymous.

And you seem to have way-overanalyzed the cartoon, btw. That is what it is, a cartoon. Did you realize that? Have you ever seen any other cartoons? You seem to be completely devoid of humor as you try to figure out an actual purpose for a fake cartoon spray bottle!

I use the same posting "rules" here as I do on any other message board...I tend to treat posters as they treat me. It's pretty simple. I'm not sure what your angle is, and why you're raggin' on me; I've been a cartoonist virtually my entire life, and there are a couple hundred cartoons on my site. And you've chosen to use the embassy thread to crit ONE particular visual which happens to be on my site at the moment.

I'm confused. If that's your last message to me, you can be sure I am as happy about it as you are.

Signed - Mr. Cheeky

[motocicleta]

218. I must say

having read through all of this crap, for very little reason, I am on your side Atman.
The story of Halliburton City is out there for everyone to see.
I have no idea why so many would get their panties in a bunch over the photo in your OP - no idea, it simply boggles the mind.
You don't appear to be picking a fight, just responding to some serious mush-for-brains.
There are some on this thread that need to back away from the intoxicants and strive for rationality - and you are not one of them.

Just thought you might need a show of support.

Oh and by the way; yeah, no shit. The "embassy" is definitely a big part of the reason for staying there. I have no idea why the MSM, DUers, anybody for that matter, doesn't give a crap about this. I would have thought that conclusion would not take so much energy, but I think a fair number of people are just permanently awakened on the wrong side of the bed these days.

Cheers!

[juajen]

176. I've known about this Embassy city for a long time.

It boggles the mind. It's like the invisible elephant in the room. I have never heard a politician, dem or pug, mention this embassy. You also rarely hear about the eleven or so permanent American military bases either.

My belief is that we are being played for the suckers the majority of us are.

Why don't we ask our dem and pug presidential candidates some pointed questions about these American money machines on Iraqi soil? There appears to be a wall of silence, and complicity of both parties is, unfortunately, an obvious conclusion.

Didn't I read that the Pentagon budget was off by about a trillion dollars? Sounds about right.

[Stephanie]

29. The U.S. is building the World's Largest Embassy in Iraq

It will be bigger than Vatican City. It has swimming pools and gyms and housing for thousands of people. It's essentially a fortress, and it's part of the neo-con strategy to establish Iraq as our base of operations as we attempt to colonize the Middle East. Another part of the initial strategy was the 14 "enduring bases" - permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, just as we have now in places like Saudi Arabia, and Cuba. The neo-cons planned to topple regimes all across the ME in a "domino" strategy, and establish American hegemony there before moving on to confront N. Korea and ultimately China. The neo-cons are in it for reasons of idealogy and power, and the TX oilmen are in it for profit. And the World's Largest Embassy is not an embassy at all, but a little city in the middle of Baghdad, a city that would be a sovereign nation under international law, as an embassy. Building it is a Halliburton boondoggle, and ultimately it will serve to protect the oil interests of Halliburton, Exxon, et al.

[Atman]

31. Thanks for the synopsis

I've often felt like I was the only person on DU that knew about this. NO ONE ever talks about it, and what it means.

And as I said before...it explains just about everything.

.

[Stephanie]

33. I posted it about it before but I'm searching archives and can't find it

You're so right, people don't know. Let's excerpt those articles and post more concrete info so people get the facts. My synopsis is inadequate.

[leftchick]

136. It does explain everything

and meshes nicely with the new Western OIL Company Contracts that steal every last drop of Iraqi oil from Iraqis. I share your concern with the lack of attention. I have been screaming about this for a couple of years now. It is the people with a D after their names in congress who should be questioning the WH about Halliburton City. Anyday now would be nice.

[bonito]

48. Atman I know how it is

Under the radar http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3094365

[Guaranteed]

130. You're looking at the buildings in the background.

It's just a picture, and not a very good one.

[leftchick]

144. duh!

I thought that was obvious from the first time I saw the photo last fall.

[Atman]

147. And if you look closely, there is steel framing going up in the far left of the pic

Under the cranes. Imagine that!

Now here's something for the Karls...they're thinking about the way THEY would build something, with budget constraints and normal processes. But there is nothing normal about this. How would Karl erect a city like this if money were no object? Maybe he'd be able to put up cranes on every block if he didn't have to actually pay for them. I hate to use the tired cliche, but "think outside the box." This just isn't a 'normal' construction project, and the Karls are trying to define it in 'normal' terms.

There is simply no argument or discussion the existence of this embassy/city. The Karls are reduced to questioning the veracity of the photo.

.

[Stephanie]

10. and, as I posted on your other thread, the Enduring Bases

the permanent American bases on Iraqi soil

[Stephanie]

11. I think a link and some photos would help explain your point

not everyone knows about it

[Nutmegger]

12. I think people were too preoccupied with your iPhone post.

:rofl:

[Atman]

13. Yeah, but that's sooo sweet...

DOH! Hey, stop that!

.

[Nutmegger]

32. I couldn't resist!

Behold, the iPhone!

[The Wielding Truth]

16. Just found this interesting observation.

http://hannah.webserver.smith-family.com:8080/archive/001152.html

[Atman]

18. Did Brittany and KFed reunite?

Is the sub-line not provocative enough? WTF?

.

[Stephanie]

20. A U.S. Embassy larger than Vatican City.

Not the Vatican - Vatican CITY.

[lectrobyte]

22. Some links

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm

Three years after a U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, only one major U.S. building project in Iraq is on schedule and within budget: the massive new American embassy compound.

The $592 million facility is being built inside the heavily fortified Green Zone by 900 non-Iraqi foreign workers who are housed nearby and under the supervision of a Kuwaiti contractor, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. Construction materials have been stockpiled to avoid the dangers and delays on Iraq's roads.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/AmerPalace.htm

Bigger and More Lavish than Hussein's Palaces

"The question puzzles and enrages a city: how is it that the Americans cannot keep the electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth?" wrote London Times reporter Daniel McGrory on May 3, 2006.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

New U.S. Embassy in Iraq cloaked in mystery

The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

“We can’t talk about it. Security reasons,” Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

[shance]

74. Guess who is paying for this profiteering fortress? That would be you and me.

Don't you love how we are giving up all our money and our rights so that we can be enslaved by these folks with our own money?

[karlrschneider]

26. We've talked about it here on DU a lot but I can't recall it being on the M$M

I guess I'll just :kick: it for now...
:eyes:

[bonito]

28. This is The issue for sure

But you know what keeps crossing my mind? Is that I think that it is a good possibility we could have been allot further with alternative energy sources but for influences out side our boarders with tentacles in Congress with interest in that region wanting the US there luring the oil profiteers for security reasons, anyway, seems to be the elephant in the room to me.
Jimmy Carters book might shed some more light on this.

[nam78_two]

30. Sorry

K&R....

I miss many good posts...

[Auntie Bush]

34. Where is that bloody city being built?

If our troops ever leave ... what's to prevent the Iraqis from storming it and taking it over.

Why isn't it talked about by the news media? It's been blocked...just like the story about the wire on bush's back during the debate. They hushed that up in a hurry...just like many other things...to numerous to mention.

[Stephanie]

38. More info >>>>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm

Giant U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad
Posted 4/19/2006 12:51 AM ET

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
Three years after a U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, only one major U.S. building project in Iraq is on schedule and within budget: the massive new American embassy compound.
The $592 million facility is being built inside the heavily fortified Green Zone by 900 non-Iraqi foreign workers who are housed nearby and under the supervision of a Kuwaiti contractor, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. Construction materials have been stockpiled to avoid the dangers and delays on Iraq's roads.

"We are confident the embassy will be completed according to schedule (by June 2007) and on budget," said Justin Higgins, a State Department spokesman.

The same cannot be said for major projects serving Iraqis outside the Green Zone, the Senate report said. Many — including health clinics, water-treatment facilities and electrical plants — have had to be scaled back or in some cases eliminated because of the rising costs of securing worksites and workers.

"No large-scale, U.S.-funded construction program in Iraq has yet met its schedule or budget," the committee report said.

Security is the "No. 1 factor that impedes progress," said Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Contractors and Army Corps of Engineers officials "are being shot at or threatened every day," he said. At least 467 contractors in Iraq have been killed, said Christine Belisle, a spokeswoman for the special inspector general.

According to the special inspector general's office, which Congress created to oversee U.S. projects in Iraq, 25% of nearly $21 billion for Iraq reconstruction has been diverted to pay for security.

The massive new embassy, being built on the banks of the Tigris River, is designed to be entirely self-sufficient and won't be dependent on Iraq's unreliable public utilities.

The 104-acre complex — the size of about 80 football fields — will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants. The average Baghdad home has electricity only four hours a day, according to Bowen's office.

The current U.S. Embassy in Iraq has nearly 1,000 Americans working there, more than at any other U.S. embassy.

Most embassy functions are now housed in Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace, also within the Green Zone. The U.S. government and military, which occupied many of Saddam's palaces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, are turning the facilities back to the Iraqi government.

The lead contractor on the embassy project is a Kuwaiti firm, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, Higgins said. There are also five U.S. subcontractors, but he would not name them for security reasons.

The Senate report recommended that First Kuwaiti consider hiring more Iraqis, if they can be properly screened.

[Atman]

40. Oh, how coinky-dinky..."confident it can be completed by JUNE 2007"

It just gets clearer and clearer...


.

[bobthedrummer]

Fwiw Stephanie-CorpWatch.org has been reporting on Halliburton

in Iraq, especially the US Embassy complex.

on edit: link to article by David Phinney about Halliburton City
http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?id=13258

[Stephanie]

49. thanks!

can you excerpt for the folks here?

[bobthedrummer]

51. No, wish I could though.

[Stephanie]

52. ok thanks, I will - EXCERPT >>>

http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?id=13258

Baghdad Embassy Bonanza

Kuwait Company’s Secret Contract & Low-Wage Labor
by David Phinney, Special to CorpWatch
February 12th, 2006

Work for what is planned to be the largest, most fortified US embassy in the world was quietly awarded last summer to a controversial Kuwait-based construction firm accused of exploiting employees and coercing low-paid laborers to work in war-torn Iraq against their will.

More than a few U.S. contractors competing for the $592-million Baghdad project express bewilderment over why the U.S. State Department gave the work to First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting (FKTC). They claim that some competing contractors possessed far stronger experience in such work and that at least one award-winning company offered to perform all but the most classified work for $60 million to $70 million less than FKTC.

“It's stunning what First Kuwaiti has been able to get from the State Department,” one contractor said.

Several other contractors that competed for the embassy contracts shared similar reactions and believe that a high-level decision at the State Department was made to favor a Kuwait-based firm in appreciation for Kuwait's support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

“It was political,” said one contractor.

Mohammad I. H. Marafie, chairman and co-owner of FKTC, is a member of one of the most powerful mercantile families in Kuwait.

[Stephanie]

41. And a little more info >>>>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2162249,00.html

In the chaos of Iraq, one project is on target: a giant US embassy
From Daniel McGrory in Baghdad

THE question puzzles and enrages a city: how is it that the Americans cannot keep the electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth?

Irritation grows as residents deprived of air-conditioning and running water three years after the US-led invasion watch the massive US Embassy they call “George W’s palace” rising from the banks of the Tigris.

In the pavement cafés, people moan that the structure is bigger than anything Saddam Hussein built. They are not impressed by the architects’ claims that the diplomatic outpost will be visible from space and cover an area that is larger than the Vatican city and big enough to accommodate four Millennium Domes. They are more interested in knowing whether the US State Department paid for the prime real estate or simply took it.

While families in the capital suffer electricity cuts, queue all day to fuel their cars and wait for water pipes to be connected, the US mission due to open in June next year will have its own power and water plants to cater for a population the size of a small town.

Officially, the design of the compound is supposed to be a secret, but you cannot hide the giant construction cranes and the concrete contours of the 21 buildings that are taking shape. Looming over the skyline, the embassy has the distinction of being the only big US building project in Iraq that is on time and within budget.

In a week when Washington revealed a startling list of missed deadlines and overspending on building projects, Congress was told that the bill for the embassy was $592 million (£312 million).

The heavily guarded 42-hectare (104-acre) site — which will have a 15ft thick perimeter wall — has hundreds of workers swarming on scaffolding. Local residents are bitter that the Kuwaiti contractor has employed only foreign staff and is busing them in from a temporary camp nearby.

After roughing it in Saddam’s abandoned palaces, diplomats should have every comfort in their new home. There will be impressive residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff to work in. There will be what is rumoured to be the biggest swimming pool in Iraq, a state-of-the-art gymnasium, a cinema, restaurants offering delicacies from favourite US food chains, tennis courts and a swish American Club for evening functions.

The security measures being installed are described as extraordinary. US officials are preparing for the day when the so-called green zone, the fortified and sealed-off compound where international diplomats and Iraq’s leaders live and work, is reopened to the rest of the city’s residents, and American diplomats can retreat to their own secure area.

Iraqi politicians opposed to the US presence protest that the scale of the project suggests that America retains long-term ambitions here. The International Crisis Group, a think-tank, said the embassy’s size “is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country”.

A State Department official said that the size reflected the “massive amount of work still facing the US and our commitment to see it through”.

BEHIND SCHEDULE

A US Inspector General’s report into reconstruction found that although $22 billion had been spent, water, sewage and electricity, infrastructure still operated at prewar levels

Despite “significant progress” in recent months, less than half the water and electricity projects have been completed

Only six of the 150 planned health centres have been completed

US officials spent $70 million on medical equipment for health clinics that are unlikely ever to be built. More than 75 per cent of the funds for the 150 planned clinics have been allocated

Task Force Shield, the $147 million programme to train Iraqi security units to protect key oil and electrical sites failed to meet its goals. A fraud investigation is under way

Oil production was 2.18 million barrels per day in the last week of March. Before the war it was 2.6 million

[Atman]

47. Ahhh...it's BEHIND SCHEDULE!

No wonder Bush is stalling.

Oh...but that grass in the photo...


.

[UncleSepp]

35. Not that this isn't interesting, but what desert is that?

You'd be more credible talking about Halliburton's city in the desert without the green grass in the foreground and the trees in the background. That looks more like Tampa than the desert. Perhaps "US city-state in Iraq" would work better?

[Atman]

36. Are you serious?

That was a joke post, right?

.

[UncleSepp]

42. I am absolutely serious.

If you have an important story to get out, being clear and accurate is important,too. Don't say it's in the desert when the pictures don't look like a desert. It's in Iraq - leave it at that. "Nation state in the Iraqi desert" sounds better than "city-state in Iraqi territory", but there's a word for saying stuff that sounds good but isn't strictly accurate for the purposes of getting people to believe what you want them to believe, and it ain't "news".

On edit:

The new embassy is being built in Baghdad. Baghdad is in the middle of an area of irrigated farmland, not desert:



You may remember this area of the world from school, as Mesopotamia or, alternately, the Fertile Crescent. Still not a desert.

[Atman]

44. Uh...okay.

No wonder no one cares. The picture has grass in it. Undermines the whole issue.

:eyes:

.

[UncleSepp]

46. Soo, poor reading comprehension AND bad geography?

That's not at all what I said. Atman, if you want people to take you seriously and pay attention to this issue, you are going to have to be accurate in your descriptions. If you get the easily verifiable details wrong, like Baghdad being in a desert when it isn't, people are not going to believe you about the details that are not as easy to verify.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UncleSepp]

54. So, the actual facts don't matter?

That's what I'm hearing from you. You don't care what even the simplest facts are, you just want people to pay attention to your story, agree with your interpretation of what this embassy means, and respond in the way you want them to.

I agree with you that we don't need any stupid, ignorant CU posters around here, but I don't think we need any Fox News newscasters, either. The facts are important. Truth is important. Little facts lead up to big facts, and if you get the little stuff wrong, the big stuff can legitimately be called into question. Even if you arrive at a valid conclusion from faulty facts, the conclusion will still be faulty. That's what I'm saying. Be accurate, watch your details.

Man. I can hardly believe you're getting all pissy on me and whipping out the eye rolling smiley because of this. I'd think a :blush: would be more appropriate, or maybe a :shrug: , but right now I'm leaning more toward :dunce: .

[Stephanie]

56. You're so busy nitpicking you're completely missing the point

You're quibbling over a few words in the OP that make no difference - to most people Iraq = the desert. That the embassy lies in a green part of Iraq is irrelevant to the point of the post, which is that we are building THE WORLD'S LARGEST EMBASSY IN IRAQ, LARGER THAN VATICAN CITY, ALMOST $600 MILLION SPENT, A PERMANENT AMERICAN PRESENCE. Who cares if there's grass???

[UncleSepp]

57. I completely get the point. The case has to be made well

If you want people to pay attention to an issue, it has to be put forth in a way that's solid, clear, and compelling. Getting little facts wrong and using hyperbole or ALL CAPS won't make that point. It makes the story look like hysteria, and causes people to ignore it.

I think this is just as important as you do, and want to see attention paid to it. The question that was asked was "why aren't people paying attention to this story", and that's exactly what I addressed.

On edit: What "Most people think" is not as important as the truth. When you're trying to affect what "most people think", you don't feed their own ignorance back to them... unless you're Fox News, that is.

[Stephanie]

58. yeah, okay, then why don't you go ahead & post it in a solid, clear and compelling way?

do it yourself, if you really believe it's just as important as I do. unless you're just an underminer. do it yourself, your way, if you think this post is so flawed, and if you really think you can do a better job, please do. the more people see the info, the better. if you can do it better, then do it.

[Atman]

63. Snap

Thanks. Well said.

.

[Stephanie]

59. re: on edit

you're being obtuse. it's understood. i.e., Desert Storm.

[Atman]

62. Okay, so why the F aren't you out there making that point?

If it is so compelling, where the hell is YOUR thread on this subject? You have NOTHING to add except semantic quibbles. If you seriously think people aren't paying attention to this story because I said "desert," then your opinion really doesn't matter to me.

.

[Atman]

60. I NEVER mentioned "desert" or made it a point of my post!

Oh...until the last, very last, sentence. You wanna claim I said all sorts of shit I didn't say...YOU say "Baghdad," but I never did. I didn't say "the desert" until the very final last sentence. I made no point about this being in "the desert." Why can't you just read the post for what it's about? You're really, really projecting if you think the reason people aren't outraged is because I used the word "desert" in my post, but there is green grass in the photo.

.

[mainegreen]

135. whoops. Read your later posts.

Sorry. Please ignore this!

[Atman]

39. If half the people who've responded would also rec this...

...it would be way up the list and might get more notice by fellow DUers. Point being, we're calling our Senators and demanding answers to the wrong questions. Everything else is a smokescreen for this. This is freakin' HUGH. Seriesly.

.

[Jcrowley]

43. Living in Surreality

Camp Bucca is a story you can't read anywhere -- and yet it may, in a sense, be the most important American story in Iraq right now. While arguments spin endlessly here at home about the nature of withdrawal "timetables," and who's cutting and running from what, and how many troops we will or won't have in-country in 2007, 2008, or 2009, on the ground a process continues that makes mockery of the debate in Washington and in the country. While the "reconstruction" of Iraq has come to look ever more like the deconstruction of Iraq, the construction of an ever more permanent-looking American landscape in that country has proceeded apace and with reasonable efficiency.

First, we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never to label "permanent." (For a while, they were given the charming name of "enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size of American towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts, Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are, elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded. Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first "permanent U.S. prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the Bush administration is building what's probably the largest, best fortified "embassy" in the solar system with its own elaborate apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of 3,500.

If, for a moment, you stop listening to the arguments about, or even the news about, Iraq here at home and just concentrate on the ignored reality of those facts-on-the-ground, you're likely to assess our world somewhat differently. After all, those facts being made on the ground -- essentially policy-put-into-action without the trappings of debate, democracy, media coverage, or checks and balances of any sort -- are unlikely to be altered or halted in any foreseeable future by debate or opinion polls in our country. All that is likely to alter them is other facts on the ground -- a growing insurgency, the deaths of Americans and Iraqis in ever greater numbers, a region increasingly thrown into turmoil, and maybe, one of these days, a full-scale, in-the-streets reaction by the Shiites of Iraq to the occupation of their country by a foreign power intent on going nowhere anytime soon.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=123690

[Atman]

45. Since I can't rec individual posts, I'll reply just to kick this

Great find. Thanks.

But are you sure the story is real? I mean...there's grass in the photo. :sarcasm:

.

[Atman]

53. I'm kicking...please, kick or forward to your mail list!

People MUST know about this. Billions of dollars are missing. And NO ONE talks of this Nation State in Iraq.

.

[Atman]

55. k.

:kick:

[BeHereNow]

61. kick and recommend

On the off chance that our newly elected "democratic"
leaders want to address this issue...that being, the use of our tax dollars without
discussion or debate for
our approval for the construction of this hegemonic palace.

Uh-huh.

BHN

[Nutmegger]

71. The damn thing will be visible from space!

In the pavement cafés, people moan that the structure is bigger than anything Saddam Hussein built. They are not impressed by the architects’ claims that the diplomatic outpost will be visible from space and cover an area that is larger than the Vatican city and big enough to accommodate four Millennium Domes. They are more interested in knowing whether the US State Department paid for the prime real estate or simply took it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2162249,00.html

[Atman]

91. No, it's all a scam...just ask Karlschneider...

He nows everything.

.

[karlrschneider]

98. No I don't now everything.

But I now a lot.
:eyes:

[Atman]

101. Then fill us all in...

What do you know about the US Embassy in Iraq?

Please.

Please.

Tell us.

.

[karlrschneider]

104. No more than most of us here do, actually. But I know a bogus "picture"

when I see it. I can't figure out why others can't.

[Stephanie]

107. um, maybe it's just you?

:hi:

[karlrschneider]

111. For chrissakes LOOK at the purported 'photo'!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not even CLOSE to being a real photograph! Can't you see the OBVIOUS plonking of the 'cranes' in front (WAY in front) of those buildings...that are already BUILT? Good God, give me a fucking break here!....

How the HELL can a straight line of 6 or 7 cranes erect a neighborhood of structures from the periphery? It can't f;ucking be DONE. Jeezusfuckingchrist....

[Stephanie]

113. um, maybe they are placed in position to put up MORE buildings?

I really don't get your outrage. I see nothing wrong with the photo.

[Atman]

114. Dig that hole, Karl...dig it, baby!

This isn't new, Karl. Do some research, man. And have another six or seven drinks.

.

[Stephanie]

118. yeah, I'm going to bed

this is getting tedious

[karlrschneider]

126. Adios, amigo.

It ends now.

[Stephanie]

117. do you build high-rises for a living, by any chance?

curious. or are you a professional photographer? surveillance expert? how is it that you see bogus photos where nobody else does? these photos have been around the world and only you can see the big lie? how come?

[Atman]

120. Before I sign off...

That is the point, isn't it, Steph. We're not posting NEW information or photographs. This stuff has been out for quite a while, and no one has disputed it. It has been acknowledged in the main stream press. All I did was start a thread asking why the media is ignoring it now.


Karl has other issues.

.

[karlrschneider]

125. No, actually, I'm an engineer with some knowledge of structures and construction.

Also, I worked for National Steel Erectors for years and I've actually operated cranes they used.
As for the 'photos' being around the world...well, how surprising is it to you that ANY image could achieve that nowadays? Have you never seen a phony picture on the internets?

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nutmegger]

105. I don't know what to do.

Should I :rofl: or :eyes: ?

Maybe I'll just do both.

:rofl::eyes:

[shanti]

82. well...

there are SO MANY things they won't talk about. where to start? :shrug: do you really think they will let MSM talk about halliburton? it truly is the elephant in the room!

[Atman]

97. Kinda weird but...

I am moved.

I've posted about this angle to W's whole ME bullshit several times, and it has always been ignored. No one would believe it. Maybe the moon and stars finally aligned. Maybe this is a truth whose time has come. Kick this. Rec this. E-mail this.

THIS IS WHY OUR KIDS ARE DYING and Bush refuses to acknowledge it. IT'S BUSINESS. Halliburton is behind schedule (see other post) and we ain't leavin' until it's done.

.

[Stephanie]

103. We are NEVER leaving.

That is the point. That is what Bush can't and won't say. WE ARE NEVER LEAVING IRAQ, and this "embassy," and the enduring bases, are the evidence.

[karlrschneider]

115. Look here, I AGREE with you on that point!!!!!!

I know Chimp and Cheney and all those pricks are lying about this whole scenario. Hell, we ALL know this...I was just trying to keep our 'evidence' legitimate. We have plenty of genuine evidence to work with, I just object to using stuff that can be shown jiggered! Hell we're all on the same side here, let's try to be honest at least! :D

[Stephanie]

119. okay. honestly, I think you're acting kind of nuts.

I think your ranting about the photos is absolutely crazy, if I'm going to be honest.

[karlrschneider]

123. I might be nuts, but I can't figure out how a crane that's obviously several hundred yards

away from the nearest building is of any use. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Thanks.
:-)

[OxQQme]

124. What I see

in that photo:
several building cranes between the foreground wall and the buildings that are already up
that were probably erected with those very cranes which are now in a secure holding area
awaiting further use as needed. Probably a battalion of troops to keep the whole thing secure.

[karlrschneider]

127. Those kinds of cranes don't get 'moved'. They're built on site for one

particular building. Once the structure is complete, the cranes are dismantled. They aren't mobile.
You can see from the alleged 'picture' they don't even have a proper foundation. The image is a totally photoshopped product of someone's imagination. The 'embassy' is real, the 'picture' is bullshit...

[rpgamerd00d]

152. Karl, the buildings in the background are not part of the shot.

The cranes are positioned over empty space. That empty space, is where the new embassy will be.
The buildings in the background are not part of said embassy. They simply already exist, and are just in the picture.

This is obvious.

[Atman]

153. I don't think Karl's playing anymore

No one would genuflect for him.

.

[Greyskye]

dupe post

self delete

[Greyskye]

174. Thank you.

I've been reading through this thread to see if anyone would actually make this very obvious statement, which Karl just doesn't seem to be able to grok.

The buildings in the background are not part of the new embassy structure. They are pre-existing (probably apartment buildings) in the BACKGROUND OF THE OBJECT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

[Mind_your_head]

122. Remember, Israel wants nothing more than an

"American permanent presence" in the middle east (so that America can secure Israels interests).

If anyone disagrees with that statement, please "state your case".

[Chiyo-chichi]

151. What I got from that London Times article

was that reconstruction was behind schedule, but that construction of this mega-embassy was going quite well. If they finish it by this summer, that would mesh quite well with your theory (I think it was yours) that troops will be rolled home over the folowing year in time for the '08 election.

Why the hell do we need an EMBASSY with a staff of thousands ANYWHERE?

[truedelphi]

210. I'm not sure the embassy is the point

Halliburton signs up for massive contracts, does the abusive waste and fraud thing-ee
and then moves on to the next massive fraud thing-ee

It may be that the Embassy is never going to be built - or it will only be worked on until the money is skimmed off

Much as they got money to deliver clean water for the troops and never delivered any clean water

[Atman]

211. "Never going to be built?" It is scheduled to open this year.

This is real, now.

.

[truedelphi]

212. I stand corrected

I guess if they can get such cheap Asian labor for ten dollars or day or less,
then they will deliver on their contract.

[Atman]

213. Did you see this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3101962&mesg_id=3110384

Stomach-turning.

All done in our name, with our money.

.

[Tatiana]

112. Chairman Waxman needs to investigate this. Please contact the Oversight Committee.

By Mail or Phone:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
[phone]

Or click here to send an email:

http://oversight.house.gov/contact.asp

This could come under the investigation already underway into Halliburton subcontracting.

[ima_sinnic]

138. just the info I was looking for, thank you

OP is dead-on right: this is something that needs to be looked into and terminated--like yesterday.

[happydreams]

193. I've been trying to e-mail him and I keep getting

Can't open merge file /reform/min/param_files/form_mail.txt: No such file or directory
Your request could not be processed because of the above error. Nothing has been saved. Please notify the manager of this web site that a problem was encountered.
If no web site manager information is available for this site, please use the Web Comments form for the US House of Representatives to report the error. Please be sure to include as much information as possible (such as the Location/Address of the web page being used when the error occurred) so that steps can be taken to resolve the issue.

Thank you.


I contacted the main website for the House and they should be getting back with me.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

129. Here's a story from about 9 months ago, from USA Today

http://tinyurl.com/yxf66o

Someone else had this same link above but I thought it deserved some attention. It's been going up for a long time.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

131. Hmmm....

After reading the inane diversions on this thread: maybe you should repost the ARTICLE about the Big-Ass Embassy without the photo, so as not to distract karlschneider or whoever about the veracity of the photo. Maybe it's 'shopped, maybe not, who cares? It's not a secret that we are building the Big-Ass Embassy (and when I say "we", I mean our tax dollars. As Dave Letterman said, write those tax checks out to H-A-L-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N.), and it IS a crime that no one is talking about it.

Anyone know people over there who've seen this thing up close?

[Stephanie]

137. I'm sure anyone who's been in the Green Zone has seen it.

It's right on the Tigris, inside the Green Zone. So basically all U.S. personel in Baghdad would have seen it.

[Blue_Tires]

132. ttt n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

133. randi rhodes and sam seder have commented on this before.

it's utterly gigantic. purported to be the largest expense for a building complex in the world. bigger than vatican city. this and 14 military bases speak to a permanent military presence. and on and on and on. it's very important,

but here's why it doesn't draw more attention... it isn't controversial on GD. there's nothing to get inflamed or flame others about, outside of the superficial. it's there, it shouldn't be there, we're paying for it, we wish we weren't. we apparently feel it is too big to do anything about that isn't covered already in trying to stop this war.

if it was about smoking or fluffy animals or assault rifles or any other 2nd tier of importance distraction it'd have hits all over. but it's far away and too big, and even people on DU suffer from sheer magnitude fatigue. it's too large for most people to wrap their brain around and then develop coherent outrage. and it'll be even harder for a real controversy here, which would really build the post count.

there's just too much agreement and resignation about it. ouside of "how horrible, what a waste, make it stop! stop the war!" what else can be said? this is the basic premise of human psychology that many philosophers figured out. this is why they explained it is best to hurt or lie to man in overwhelming capacities in order to stifle their indignation and will to fight. you can see the success of that here, even among those who try to believe they are above such basic psychology.

[Virginia Dare]

139. For the same reason that nobody talks about the...

multi million, if not billion, dollar base in Saudi Arabia that we abandoned after 9/11.

[Atman]

140. Thanks DUers...

I stayed up way too late last night watching this thread. This is probably my fourth try to try bringing attention to this travesty. My question still is...why in NO ONE in the MSM putting 2 and 2 together? Even if you don't believe this is the actual 100% reason Bush refuses to budge, you gotta admit, this is BIG. Finally it got some traction, probably just because of the general tone after Chimpy's speec, who knows.

Please, kick it when possible, start a new thread, whatever...but we have to stop this nonsense about Bush just being and idiot and sending troops to Iraq for no reason. He has a very, very big reason. But no one is calling him on. He seems willing to take the "Stupid, out-of-touch president" as just a cost of doing business.

We probably can't do squat about this. But it helps to know that we're not sending troops for nothing. It's all about protecting shareholder value.

.

[independentpiney]

141. Get rid of the bogus photo- it detracts from the importance of the issue

The emerald city is real, as are the mega-bases. The neocons truly believed Iraq was going to be our willing ally and staging ground for americanizing the Arab world. But having spent 25 years on major, heavy construction sites, I can tell the crane placements are faked. As karlshneider said, those are not mobile cranes. They would not all be erected like that before any foundations are even in place.

[Stephanie]

142. I'm sorry, that is utter bs.

It's a complete red herring. I don't know what's behind it, but it's completely insane.

[independentpiney]

146. And you've put up how many buildings?

[Atman]

149. Please see post #144

Frankly, I cannot even believe people are denying the existence of this. It hasn't been a secret, NO ONE it the WH denies it! My post was only about why the MSM refuses to discuss it, not whether it exists. IT DOES. Only the three posters in this thread seem to want to deny it, and I can't figure out why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3101962&mesg_id=3104715

.

[independentpiney]

156. I never denied the existence of the embassy

maybe you need to read a little more thoroughl;y before hitting the reply button

[Atman]

157. I'd be content if you just addressed my posts

Do you or do you not see the steel framing under the crane? Hell, you can even see the wires (I need to be careful...someone will deny it's real because they're not called "wires!") running from the crane to the framing below. I just don't know wtf we're arguing about!

.

[Atman]

160. Kickin for Friday morning

Just because I can.

.

[Stephanie]

150. explain to me why the Associated Press would doctor the photo

for what purpose?

[Atman]

143. Bullshit

We don't know what is going on in this photo. I respect you input as a steel worker, but honestly...has ANYTHING BushCo's done jibed with the way it's done everywhere else? This photo and similar ones have been used in several articles, and it didn't come from Rense, or some crazy conspiracy site...it is the official government-issued picture, if I'm not mistaken. I'm amazed that anyone would bother to focus on the photo, not the article...I've been a Photoshop user since version 1, and I use it on a daily basis. This ain't Photoshopped. While it would certainly be possible -- possible -- to fake this pic, it would be so difficult that finding the "tells," the stray pixels and halos, would be evident. But you can see right through the cranes to the buildings in the background. Karl's arguments are just nutty, but the marsh grass in the foreground is simply the Tigris river. Why is this so baffling to people?

I think we have the answer in the responses...this is so freakin' huge and unbelievable, it is difficult to wrap our heads around. But it is REAL. And several links have been offered which will authenticate it.

.

[Stephanie]

145. It is an Associated Press file photo

The MSNBC story and photo are credited to the AP.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

[independentpiney]

154. I wasn't a steel worker, i was a project manager

As I said, i know the embassy is real. I've seen no responses up thread to legitimize the photo, other than that it's from AP, and they have let bad photos slip through occasionally ( remember smoke over Beirut?) If the photo is legit, whoever was in charge of that was certainly fired. Halliburton, KBR etc are into lining their own pockets, not wasting it on prematurely siting cranes, at probably at least 25k a pop direct actual cost.

To me the questionable nature of the photo, and anyone with heavy construction experience will question it, adds nothing but controversy to a debate when there is no controversy about the fact that this monster is being built. For those who really need to look at pictures to understand that, there must be a better one available. This can't be the only one.

[Atman]

155. Can you address the construction going on under the crane at the left?

We can't see what's under the other cranes, but I'd assume it's similar steel framing. But there is definitely framing going up under the left crane.

I'm still not sure what the argument is here? We're wasting a quadrillion dollars a day on this fucking fiasco, and you think Halliburton wouldn't spend $25k for a crane? Dick "Dick" Cheney wipes his ass with $25k, then dries his hands with another 10.

.

[independentpiney]

158. Wheres the other equipment and material stockpiles?

no 245s or equal and other necessary equipment, no staged materials visible. I never said they wouldn't spend money on a crane when it's necessary, i said they don't want to waste money they can pocket.
The only argument i have is that putting a stupid photo in that may or may not be doctored is a distraction from the real issue, as this and previous exchanges illustrate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

175. It takes a trained eye to understand what is going on in a construction site.

I have had to argue with engineers on development projects in my community who didn't know what they are talking about. They knew more than I did, but I had a better understanding of the site because I lived there. They once tried to build a public building on top of an underground stream. Based on a cursory examination of the site, I told them it was there. I told the city it was there. They didn't listen. They didn't believe me until they dug up the culvert. Then they panicked and asked the city for an extra million dollars to deal with "stormwater issues".

After which, some folks (not on the project) STILL didn't believe me. They insisted that the sudden cost overruns to build an underground stormwater reservoir were the product of unwarranted state intrusion because of "floodplain issues".

In this case, what you have here is a large construction site viewed from across the river. The apartments are either recently completed or were built prior to the war by Hussein and quickly secured or repaired by US forces. They are quite clearly on the opposite side of a rather large right-of-way from the cranes, a right-of-way they are facing.

Are you prepared to argue, based on your construction expertise, that the project in the photo depicted is "too huge", when the Green Zone itself is 10x larger than that -- a massive urban renewal project, built by Hussein, of buildings and palaces covering acres each, covering land that once included half of downtown Baghdad??

The reason you can't see the foundation, which has already been laid, is that it is below the water level -- in order to support the building in such terrain, a "bathtub" must be created.

The huge, 20-foot-tall concrete barriers erected in a wall around the whole site prevent us from seeing the construction site itself.

This is intentional. The US Government is not going to configure their equipment and security barriers in such a way as to be visible to a photographer on the opposite side of the river!

Perhaps you noticed the 20-foot tall security barrier, visible as a grey band at the base of the cranes. Rest assured that the embankment it sits on is artificial. The land does not continue to slope upward in the direction of the cranes, such that one might actually see the staging area. It drops back down to river level. Baghdad is a giant floodplain. That puts whatever construction is occurring at roughly the visual level of the river bank in the photo.

The water could be a lagoon in the Green Zone, which would imply the photo was taken surreptitiously from inside the Green Zone by the AP photographer, but the zoom lens used suggests otherwise.

As for the number of cranes, visit a low-rise city sometime. Your average Convention Center uses the same construction techniques because it is typically a similar size building being built on porous floodplain, where land is available. They use about three or four of those massive cranes, needed for the really big steel girders and precast pieces. This project is maybe only twice the size of any new convention center in the US.

High-rise experience does not count: high rises use only one or two moving (not fixed) cranes. This is for lack of space, not to save money on crane rental. Most low-rise buildings use multiple cranes even on a small site. The cranes in the photo aren't as big as you might think. Note the apartment buildings are actually low-rise structures -- maybe not for Iraq, but certainly any US city. You can't build a high-rise in the absence of reasonably shallow bedrock.

[Leopolds Ghost]

178. On closer inspection, this building is no bigger than your average Convention Ctr.

The cranes being used are nothing special -- obviously the building is being built speedily, so they use more of em. No extra-large cranes of the sort that might be needed to move anything heavy more than 5 stories.

The apartment buildings are probably bigger than the embassy itself.

[Stephanie]

192. the embassy is a complex of building, includng apartments

n/t

[Atman]

194. 3600 apartments. Like I said, it's a city.

The place is just amazing, and it is not only a money pit, but Bush is sending men and women to die to protect it.

.

[Stephanie]

191. thanks

if you google images for "u.s. embassy iraq" you will see a map of the locale, right on the Tigris, inside the Green Zone

[WinkyDink]

148. We could start to use the name. Use it as a return address. Sign it on e-mails. Call CNN, C-Span,

etc., and say that's where you're from. Joke about it.

Get it OUT there, to get people asking about it.

HALLIBURTON CITY.

[mainegreen]

159. The photo is *not* fake. Here, take a closer look:

Note how the cranes scale perfectly? Note how they blend into the vegetation? Crickey, just look at the cabling! This is *not* photoshopped. The building in the background are just that: background. Is this in Baghdad? Who knows, but lets take a look at the vegetation shall we?

Here's another photo of Baghdad:


Note the palms? Looks like the same or related species!

Hell, the architecture of the buildings in the background (of the photo in question) looks like arabic architecture. Is this a photo of the soon to be super embassy? No clue. Is this a real photo of some construction on a river (note the marsh grass in the front) somewhere in the middle east? Evidence *clearly* points to yes. Are the contractors idiots for putting the cranes up early? Who knows, but frankly that is what they have apparently done here. Idiots happen, and currently a lot of our idiots are over in Iraq trying make a fast buck.

[Stephanie]

164. thank you

thank you very much. :hi:

[Javaman]

163. The Eastern American Empire.

that's not an embassey but the pentagon east.

[happydreams]

182. Like the Eastern Roman Empire after the Western fell.....

:scared:

[shance]

165. I guess this would confirm the BushCo plans to take over the Middle East oil

and Africa and South America too.

[LSK]

167. cuz its not exactly a new story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x933354

I mean yeah its outrageous and another fucking example that is disgusting, but its not exactly new news.

[Atman]

171. The whole point is that it isn't new news

Yet, look how many people just on this thread know nothing about it!

My contention is, this is why Bush is behaving in such a bizarre manner. Any other reason, even his fragile ego, doesn't go far enough in explaining what the bloody hell he is up to...but this construction project is still underway and not finished. Does anyone REALLY think we're going to walk away from it?

.

[file83]

204. LOL - that was a funny exchange...

You: Why isn't this story in the news!?
Idiot: Because this story isn't new.
You: ?? (wtf!) ??

:rofl:

Atman, you rock!

[Atman]

173. What is really bizarre is how many of you have posted links to stories about it

And the number of people STILL saying it is bogus!

Yeah...Atman made it all up because he wants a high post count!

:crazy:

.

[happydreams]

183. Yeah I know your type...

people who get high post counts cause their topics are damned important,hee.

There should at least be a vote in Congress to cut funding to this and the military bases.

:hi:

[Radio_Lady]

185. Let's hear it for "Happy Dreams" -- you posted exactly what I was thinking.

"There should at least be a vote in Congress to cut funding to this and the military bases."

I'll go along with that point of view.

Thank you.

[happydreams]

189. Thanks, I've been thinking about trying to get this on

the House Floor for discussion. Kucinich might want to do it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

170. Bush is the Anti-Christ -- He is building the New Babylon, as predicted.

Once the war begins, he will rule from Patagonia, with His Bride.

[Radio_Lady]

180. Now, THERE's a REAL photo if I ever saw one!

:sarcasm:

After a day, I still don't get the point of this thread. OK. Bush and Halliburton are building in Iraq. What do you propose we do about it?

It's more like a train wreck than a discussion! We get goaded on while we have to re-think who we are because of our honest opinions.

So I've decided to leave and let you people figure it out. {{{EXITS LEFT}}

In peace,

Radio Lady

[happydreams]

179. K&R this baby. Thanks for the effort. It's going in my "Public Cost,

Private Profit" file.

This and the 14 permanent US military bases being in built in Iraq should be front and center news 24/7.

I think that this complex is where the Bush Palace is.

[happydreams]

186. Here is another link.

The plans are a state secret, so just where the Starbucks and Krispy Kreme stores will be is a mystery. But as the concrete hulks of a huge 21-building complex rise from the ashes of Saddam's Baghdad, Washington is sending a clear message to Iraqis: "We're here to stay."

It's being built in the Middle East, but George W's palace, as the locals have dubbed the new US embassy, is designed as a suburb of Washington.

An army of more than 3500 diplomatic and support staff will have their own sports centre, beauty parlour and swimming pool. Each of the six residential blocks will contain more than 600 apartments.

The prime 25-hectare site was a steal — it was a gift from the Iraqi Government. And if the five-metre-thick perimeter walls don't keep the locals at bay, then the built-in surface-to-air missile station should.

Guarded by a dozen gangly cranes, the site in the heart of the Green Zone is floodlit by night and is so removed from Iraqi reality that its entire construction force is foreign..... more.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0828-08.htm

[Nothing Without Hope]

197. Here are some older links on this outrage - largely unkown by the

media-duped American public:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1477839
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/15/our-big-digs-in-the-desert/

[donkeyotay]

198. Wow. What a bizarre thread.

After wading through the infighting, I got the point, photo or no, we are building a giant-ass permanent "embassy" in Iraq, and basically we can't know anything about it because its a secret. I'm sure it'll cost a lot of money to run, and will come in handy for protecting the oil companies.

Thanks Atman, and Stephanie, for sharing. I had heard about this thing but hadn't read anything about it.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

214. You summed it up nicely, a lot of fighting over a photo that was not even

needed to understand the point of the thread.
Thanks Atman and Stephanie...

[Just-plain-Kathy]

199. Thank you Atman for posting this...It;s not common knowledge

You did good. Forget the bull shit.

[mhatrw]

201. Good question. n/t

[ftr23532]

202. on a related note, that plane crash in Iraq had the owner of KBR subcontractor on it...

Here's http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=42051">a story that mentions the individuals, Ismail Kulak, who is part owner of the Turkish-based Kulak Construction Corp. Most of the people on the plane were Turkish workers for Kulak and another subcontractor, Serka, that were being brought into Iraq (presumably under a KBR subcontract, but who knows who hired them in the end)

There's an interesting story involving Kulak and the use of illegal Filipino workers that ties into a larger issue of the undocumented workers by US contractors in Iraq and how it ties in to the growing need for people to leave their countries to find work overseas. So anyways, in late 2004 a Filipino government official http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/10/14/MTNN2004101420463.html">specifically warned him to stop illegally recruiting Fillipino workers for use in Iraq. This wasn't long after a string of http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-20-hostage-released_x.htm">hostage taking incidents of workers there that led up to the Philipines government pulling their troops out.

Now, whether or not Kulak itself stopped using Filipinos (and based on this http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022005/iraq_dc.htm">Feb 2005 article, that doens't look too likely), here's an interesting 2006 Asia Times article that talks about the scale with which the use of illegal Filipino workers http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HG15Ae01.html">continues to grow:

Jul 15, 2006

US outsources war to Filipinos
By Cher S Jimenez

MANILA - Filipinos are taking up work at US-run facilities in Iraq, dodging an official Philippines travel and employment ban on the war-torn country and providing the US military and its affiliated contractors the cheap, English-speaking manpower it is having increasing difficulty recruiting at home.

The deployments to Iraq represent an illicit spin on the Philippines' global outsourcing phenomenon, where more than 8 million Filipinos have left home for higher paying jobs abroad. The Philippine government imposed a ban on the deployment of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) to Iraq in July 2004, soon after Manila recalled its small humanitarian contingent after militant captors threatened to behead a Filipino truck driver working for the US occupation forces.

The Philippines remains a staunch supporter of US-led counterterrorism operations in Southeast Asia, including cooperation in combating alleged Islamic terror groups in the southern Philippines. Critics contend that the hotly contested 2004 election had abruptly influenced President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's government decision to withdraw from the US-led "coalition of the willing" occupation forces in Iraq. Two months before the ban was announced, another Filipino truck driver was the Philippines' first casualty in Iraq, which unleashed a torrent of anti-American protests in Manila.

More recently, however, the Philippine government has demonstrated a waning verve in enforcing that ban. Two years later, an estimated 3,000 out of the total 7,000 Filipinos now serving at four US military-run camps in Iraq are undocumented workers, according to Philippine labor officials. Comparatively high wages have been a push factor: Filipinos in Iraq earn monthly salaries from the US military and its affiliated business interests ranging between US$600 to $1,000 excluding special allowances, according to the labor official.

Filipinos already were a massive presence in the Middle East, and have historically shown extraordinary staying power in the region when faced with violent conflict. When the first Gulf War erupted between Iraq and the US in 1991, there were nearly 100,000 OFWs working in a wide array of jobs in Kuwait. When Iraqi forces first invaded the oil-rich sultanate in 1990, despite offers of free repatriation by the Philippine government, only a few of the workers took up the offer to leave their jobs and fly home.

...

US looks the other way
Philippine-based labor groups contend that the US and Philippine governments are covertly using OFWs to advance American interests in Iraq. While Philippine labor officials openly admit that many OFWs stole into Iraq after the ban was imposed and now work openly at US-run military facilities, they do not have hard evidence to confirm that US government or wayward Philippine officials are behind the illegal deployment of workers.

...

Jason Cruz, a 40-year-old warehouseman, and Ernie de Leon (not their real names), a 23-year-old lifeguard, told Asia Times Online that they were able to enter Iraq illegally through Dubai. Cruz said he flew to Dubai on a visit visa and then later applied for work through United Arab Emirates-based Prime Projects International (PPI), a subcontractor of US military contractor Halliburton, which provides support services to US armed forces in Iraq.

Communicating by e-mail, both men said they traveled to Iraq from Dubai without any hitches and suggested that this is was at least partly due to their employer's known connection to the US military. "What I know is that PPI is a subcontractor of Halliburton/KBR, so there was no problem for us to come here even if there is a ban stamped on our passports," Cruz wrote in an e-mail.

...

Significantly, Philippine officials have so far been reluctant to make accusations or pursue charges against the US firms that appear to have played a key role in the illegal recruitment of OFWs to staff their operations in Iraq. That inaction might be explained by previous close government-to-government cooperation in awarding Filipinos work in strategically sensitive business related to the US-led global "war on terror" campaign.

In March 2002, local recruitment firm Anglo-European Services, which is known to have ties with Kellogg Brown & Root, a division of the Halliburton Company that has won massive troop support contracts in Iraq, sent 250 Filipino construction workers to build additional detention cells for US-held terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The recruitment was kept under wraps by both the US and Philippine governments, which apparently agreed that all worker travel documents and recruitment requirements would be expedited in just a few hours by US embassy officials. According to people familiar with the situation, the Guantanamo-bound Filipino workers were allegedly slipped out of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport without passing through standard immigration procedures and left Manila onboard a chartered flight to Cuba.

Anglo-European Services is now aggressively querying the Philippine government to clarify if the ban on travel and employment in Iraq is still in effect, due to reports that large number of OFWs who continue to pour into the war-torn country. The recruitment company says it has a big job order on hold for Filipino workers in Iraq due to the official but lightly enforced ban.

Anyways, this seems like a topic worth mention in terms of Iraq construction contracts.

[ftr23532]

206. yikes, here's a report on the abuse of the cheap foreign labor building the embassy...scary stuff!

Layers upon layers of criminality going on http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/contract/2006/1025labor.htm">over there:

Labour Laws Trampled at New US Embassy,
Ex-Foreman Says
By David Phinney*
Inter Press Service
October 25, 2006

Things began looking sketchier than ever to John Owen as he boarded a nondescript white jet on his way back to Iraq in March 2005 following some downtime in Kuwait City. Employed by First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, the lead builder for the new 592-million-dollar U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Owen remembers being surrounded at the airport by about 50 company labourers freshly hired from the Philippines and India. Everyone was holding boarding passes to Dubai -- not to Baghdad.

"I thought there was some sort of mix-up and I was getting on the wrong plane," said the 48-year-old Floridian, who was working as a general construction foreman on the embassy project. He buttonholed a First Kuwaiti manager standing nearby and asked what was going on. The manager waved his hand, looked around the terminal and whispered to keep quiet. "'If anyone hears we are going to Baghdad, they won't let us on the plane,'" Owen recalled the manager saying. The secrecy struck Owen as a little odd, but he grabbed his luggage and moved on. Everyone filed out to the private jet and flew directly to Baghdad. "I figured that they had visas for Kuwait and not Iraq," Owen said in an interview.

The deception had all the appearances of smuggling workers into Iraq, but Owen didn't know at the time that the Philippines, India and other countries had banned or restricted their citizens from working in Iraq because of safety concerns and growing opposition to the war. After 2004, many passports were stamped "Not valid for Iraq".

Nor did Owen know that both the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon were quietly investigating contractors such as First Kuwaiti for labour trafficking and worker abuse. In fact, the international news media had accused First Kuwaiti repeatedly of coercing workers to take jobs in battle-torn Iraq once they had been lured to Kuwait with safer offers.

The Kuwait-headquartered, Lebanese-run company has billed several billion dollars on U.S. contracts since the war began in March 2003. Much of its work is performed by cheap labour largely hired from South Asia and the company has an estimated 7,500 foreign labourers in the theatre of war. Now, with a highly secretive contract awarded by the U.S. State Department, First Kuwaiti is in the midst of building the most expensive and heavily fortified U.S. embassy in the world. Scheduled to open in 2007, the sprawling complex near the Tigris River will equal Vatican City in size.

But Owen says that working on the project proved to be one of the worst jobs he has ever had in his 27 years of construction work. Not one of the five different U.S. embassy sites Owen had worked on around the world previously compared to the mess he describes.

Armenia, Bulgaria, Angola, Cameroon and Cambodia all had their share of dictators, violence and economic disruption, but the companies building the embassies were always fair and professional, he says. First Kuwaiti is the exception. Brutal and inhumane, he says "I've never seen a project more f*cked up. Every U.S. labour law was broken."

Seven months after signing on with First Kuwaiti in November 2005, he quit. In his resignation letter last June, Owen told First Kuwaiti and U.S. State Department officials that his managers physically assaulted and beat the construction workers, demonstrated little regard for worker safety, and routinely breached security.And it was all happening smack in the middle of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, he said -- right under the nose of the State Department that had quietly awarded the controversial embassy contract in July 2005.

Owen also complained of poor sanitation, squalid living conditions and medical malpractice in the labour camps where several thousand low-paid migrant workers lived. Those workers, recruited on the global labour market from the Philippines, India, Pakistan and other poor south Asian countries, earned as little as 10 to 30 dollars a day. As with many U.S.-funded contractors, First Kuwaiti prefers importing labour because it views Iraqi workers as a security headache not worth the trouble.
...

Despite numerous emails and phone calls about such allegations, neither First Kuwaiti general manager Wadih Al Absi nor his lawyer Angela Styles, the former top White House contract policy advisor, have responded. After a year of requests, State Department officials involved with the project also have ignored or rejected opportunities for comment. However, on Apr. 4, 2006, the Pentagon issued a new contracting directive following a secret investigation that officially confirms what many South Asian labourers have been complaining about ever since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Some contractors, many working as subcontractors to Halliburton /KBR in Iraq, were found to be using deceptive, bait-and-switch hiring practices and charging recruiting fees that indebted low-paid migrant workers for many months or even years to their employers. Contractors were also accused of providing substandard, crowded sleeping quarters, serving poor food, and circumventing Iraqi immigration procedures.
...

So it sounds like some of Halliburton's subcontractors are basically engaged in the practice of indentured slavory.

Kulak Construction Corp, BTW, is http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics01_oct14_2004">Kuwaiti based and run out of Turkey.

Here's a http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/11/using-asias-poor-to-build-u.html">blog post that has some more descriptions of the working conditions.

[Atman]

207. Wow. Great find!

Thanks for posting. I think.

And thanks you also to Stephanie and the others who've contributed some great links. We need to keep making noise about this!

.

[ftr23532]

215. And thank you for reminding me about the embassy project

It's getting harder and harder to keep up with all different crazy things going on these days. :yoiks:

[fooj]

203. I've wondered that myself.

Why don't the Dems shine the light on this BS?

[Canuckistanian]

208. "more secure than the Pentagon"

EXCLUSIVE: BILLION DOLLAR BUNKER
EXCLUSIVE U.S. plans Baghdad embassy more secure than Pentagon
By Chris Hughes Security Correspondent

AMERICA is to spend £1billion on an embassy in Baghdad "more secure than the Pentagon".

Plans for the hi-tech complex are being kept secret because of the terrorist threat in Iraq.

~snip

"You may as well move the Pentagon to Iraq. It will be amazingly secure but it also flies in the face of claims American is preparing to leave Iraq to be policed and governed by Iraqis.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16541084&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--billion-dollar-bunker--name_page.html

[Jcrowley]

216. Bases, bases

The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?

In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in the Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planed to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah.

But other reports suggest the U.S. military has plans for even more bases: In April 2003 report in The New York Times reported that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."2 According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," to serve as long-term encampments for thousands of American troops.3

As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases (twelve of which are located on the map) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.

Click here for more details about the bases identified above.

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

[Jcrowley]

217. Giant U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad

Giant U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad
Posted 4/19/2006 12:51 AM ET



Construction cranes are seen above the site of the new United States embassy being built in Baghdad.

THE SITE HAS 21 STRUCTURES
U.S. diplomatic employees in Iraq are to move next year to a multimillion-dollar complex that will be among the largest U.S. embassies. The facility is slated for completion June 2007.

# New office building: Includes classified activities
# New office annex: For public diplomacy staff, consular affairs and the U.S. Agency for International Development
# Interim office building: Designed for future use as a school
# General services annex: Facilities management, break areas, staff locker rooms
# Recreation building: Gym, exercise room, swimming pool, locker rooms, the American Club, commissary, food court, barber and beauty shop
# Six staff apartment buildings: Each has one bedroom apartments
# Residences for the chief and deputy chief of mission
# Marine security guard quarters
# Remaining buildings are dedicated to security, vehicle maintenance and facilities management, storage, utilities, and water and wastewater treatment

Sources: State Department, Mall of America, Disneyland, Architect of the Capitol, wire reports and Senate Foreign Relations Committee
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

Three years after a U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, only one major U.S. building project in Iraq is on schedule and within budget: the massive new American embassy compound.

The $592 million facility is being built inside the heavily fortified Green Zone by 900 non-Iraqi foreign workers who are housed nearby and under the supervision of a Kuwaiti contractor, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. Construction materials have been stockpiled to avoid the dangers and delays on Iraq's roads.

"We are confident the embassy will be completed according to schedule (by June 2007) and on budget," said Justin Higgins, a State Department spokesman.

The same cannot be said for major projects serving Iraqis outside the Green Zone, the Senate report said. Many — including health clinics, water-treatment facilities and electrical plants — have had to be scaled back or in some cases eliminated because of the rising costs of securing worksites and workers.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm