....lybob Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/kbr-guilty-iraq-negligence_n_2436115.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Wasn't Hexavalent Chromium the toxin at the center of the move, Erin Brochovich? Is they knowingly poisoned our troops, !@#$ them... take a pound of flesh and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Not that it would be in Huffpost's history to conflate topics, but if we were to argue technicalities, KBR didn't poison the soldiers, they apparently misled them on the nature of the substance, but it was the Iraqi oil workers who supplied the toxin. Plus, the Army commanded he soldiers to be stationed there to protect the fields and is equally culpable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Not that it would be in Huffpost's history to conflate topics, but if we were to argue technicalities, KBR didn't poison the soldiers, they apparently misled them on the nature of the substance, but it was the Iraqi oil workers who supplied the toxin. Plus, the Army commanded he soldiers to be stationed there to protect the fields and is equally culpable. In November, a jury found KBR, the military's largest contractor, guilty of negligence in the poisoning of a dozen soldiers, and ordered the company to pay $85 million in damages. Jurors found KBR knew both of the presence and toxicity of the chemical. Other lawsuits against KBR are pending. is there proof that the Iraqi oil workers or the military knew of the toxicity of the chemical because that knowledge appears to be crucial to the verdict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Whats the point of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Whats the point of this thread? Cheney, Halliburton bad. is there proof that the Iraqi oil workers or the military knew of the toxicity of the chemical because that knowledge appears to be crucial to the verdict Considering that the toxins were used by the Iraq workers to pump oil out, they're the ones who introduced the poison into the area. Of course the knowledge was crucial in the case, because that's what KBR was sued for. Do you think the lawyers would win the case if they argued that kbr used the toxins? This case is similar to 9/11 workers getting sick. Where's your outrage there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Cheney, Halliburton bad. Just checking if the reflex to defend any corporation is still functioning at a hyper level here, congratulation you pass with flying colors- I was going to bring up HSBC and money laundering for drug cartels, rouge states and terrorists but financial corporations aren't a real test because there are so many financial moguls on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Just checking if the reflex to defend any corporation is still functioning at a hyper level here, congratulation you pass with flying colors- I was going to bring up HSBC and money laundering for drug cartels, rouge states and terrorists but financial corporations aren't a real test because there are so many financial moguls on this board. Never mind that in this case, the evil corporation was doing the government's bidding. Never mind that I was also commenting on the legal process. Care to compare the evils done under a corporate umbrella vs the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 Never mind that in this case, the evil corporation was doing the government's bidding. Never mind that I was also commenting on the legal process. Care to compare the evils done under a corporate umbrella vs the government? This is a stupid question to ask me because you know that IMO the Government and corporations are so closely intertwined in their symbiotic relationship that you can't tell where one ends and the other begins. So who should make these people whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 This is a stupid question to ask me because you know that IMO the Government and corporations are so closely intertwined in their symbiotic relationship that you can't tell where one ends and the other begins. So who should make these people whole? If that is your question, then the answer is obvious. If DoD signed a blanket indemnity, then they're on the hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts