DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Discover Freedom
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 926 - 950 of 1247, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/31/2004 09:05:23 PM · #926
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Can someone explain to me why the Pentagon has to hire "former military personnel" as private contractors to provide security for food convoys? Isn't that why we have a military? Just how much of a premium do we pay these mercenaries vs. our GIs, and which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?

Innuendo, innuendo, innuendo. When will it end?
03/31/2004 09:22:09 PM · #927
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Can someone explain to me why the Pentagon has to hire "former military personnel" as private contractors to provide security for food convoys? Isn't that why we have a military? Just how much of a premium do we pay these mercenaries vs. our GIs, and which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?

Innuendo, innuendo, innuendo. When will it end?

August 16, 2048, 0204 UT.

Or when the questions are answered, whichever comes first. I qualified my "accusation" which is the part you chose to address. You chose to not address my questions which are based on "facts" broadcast today over CBS Radio -- to wit, that the Americans who were blown up today, and their bodies then mutilated and burned and dragged through the streets of Basra(?) today in what the White House describes as a "horrific" display, were private "security forces" hired by the Pentagon to guard convoys. My questions are ones which anyone who disapproves of his son already being several thousands of dollars in debt to his country deserves answers to, even if I didn't care about the fate of American personnel and Iraqi civilians.

Message edited by author 2004-03-31 21:22:38.
03/31/2004 09:24:02 PM · #928
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Can someone explain to me why the Pentagon has to hire "former military personnel" as private contractors to provide security for food convoys? Isn't that why we have a military? Just how much of a premium do we pay these mercenaries vs. our GIs, and which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?

Innuendo, innuendo, innuendo. When will it end?

When the White House stops issuing press releases.
03/31/2004 09:26:46 PM · #929
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Can someone explain to me why the Pentagon has to hire "former military personnel" as private contractors to provide security for food convoys? Isn't that why we have a military? Just how much of a premium do we pay these mercenaries vs. our GIs, and which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?

Innuendo, innuendo, innuendo. When will it end?

August 16, 2048, 0204 UT.

Or when the questions are answered, whichever comes first. I qualified my "accusation" which is the part you chose to address. You chose to not address my questions which are based on "facts" broadcast today over CBS Radio -- to wit, that the Americans who were blown up today, and their bodies then mutilated and burned and dragged through the streets of Basra(?) today in what the White House describes as a "horrific" display, were private "security forces" hired by the Pentagon to guard convoys. My questions are ones which anyone who disapproves of his son already being several thousands of dollars in debt to his country deserves answers to, even if I didn't care about the fate of American personnel and Iraqi civilians.

Thank you for reading my mind...NOT!
The part I was referring to is the part where you say "which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?".
That's the innuendo I was referring to.
03/31/2004 09:54:14 PM · #930
Originally posted by RonB:

The part I was referring to is the part where you say "which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?".
That's the innuendo I was referring to.

I know that's the part to which you were referring. It's the least important part of my post, and again is the only part you've chosen to address.

OK -- If it makes you happier I take it back. I have no evidence that these mercenaries being paid by the Pentagon work for a subsidiary of Haliburton or any other multinational corporation to which any administration officials have ties, either formal or informal. Any inference to that effect are purely the idle speculations of someone who has (so far) survived the Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, COINTELPRO, Proposition 13, the S&L debacle, L'affaire Iran-Contras, the 2000 Presidential election, energy deregulation, and numerous other blips on the path from grand democratic experiment to corporate oligarchy, and as such have absolutely no basis in reality.

Message edited by author 2004-03-31 22:01:31.
03/31/2004 09:58:55 PM · #931
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

The part I was referring to is the part where you say "which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?".
That's the innuendo I was referring to.

I know that's the part to which you were referring. It's the least important part of my post, and again is the only part you've chosen to address.

OK -- If it makes you happier I take it back. I have no evidence that these mercenaries being paid by the Pentagon work for a subsidiary of Haliburton or any other multinational corporation to which any administration officials have ties, either formal or informal. Any inference to that effect are purely the idle speculations of someone who has (so far) survived the Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, COINTELPRO, Proposition 13, the S&L debacle, L'affaire Contras,the 2000 Presidential election, energy deregulation, and numerous other blips on the path from grand democratic experiment to corporate oligarchy, and as such have absolutely no basis in reality.


lol of course ;)
03/31/2004 10:22:13 PM · #932
Sorry, I heard the name of the town wrong: Fallujah
04/01/2004 08:57:21 AM · #933
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Can someone explain to me why the Pentagon has to hire "former military personnel" as private contractors to provide security for food convoys? Isn't that why we have a military? Just how much of a premium do we pay these mercenaries vs. our GIs, and which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?

Well, since you really wanted answers to your questions, and couldn't figure out the answers yourself, here they are:
a) Because the alternative is to send even more servicemen and women into Iraq. Without civilian contractors, the U.S. would need to increase the number of servicemen and women in Iraq by around 10%.
b) Sure, that's why we have a military. But as I said, we don't have ENOUGH military without tapping even further into the National Guard or re-deploying our military from other regions of the world.
c) The civilian contractors ( not mercenaries - their roles are defensive not offensive ) are paid anywhere from 4 to 15 thousand dollars a month, depending on their positions ( that's 48 to 180 thousand dollars a year ). Military pay ranges from around 2 to over 13 thousand dollars a month ( that's 24 to 156 thousand dollars a year ). I believe that for the military, their pay is tax-free, as well; and they don't pay for food.

Ron
04/02/2004 10:48:06 AM · #934
The Independent of London has an article of an interview with Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who the WH has put a gag order on to silence her. She has testified for 3 hours before the 911 commission about her knowledge, which she says refutes what Condileezza Rice said that the US had no prior knowledge about attacks of planes flown into buildings on American soil. YOu can see the article HERE.
04/02/2004 11:57:21 AM · #935
In addition, the 911 commission is now looking into a speech that Condoleezza Ricw was suppossed to have been given to the John Hopkins school of Advance International Studies about the Bush Administrations' fight on terrorism but which did not contain any mention of Osama, al Qaeda or islamic terrorists. The Washington Post initially carried the story which is also carried in today's CNN news and which reports that only excerpts have been released. You can read the CNN report HERE.
04/02/2004 02:39:45 PM · #936
Another interesting article on Sibel Edmonds - she didn't begin work at the FBI until the week after 911 (but this article has some other interesting tidbits about the FBI)

Celebrating 9/11 at the FBI
04/02/2004 07:06:32 PM · #937
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Can someone explain to me why the Pentagon has to hire "former military personnel" as private contractors to provide security for food convoys? Isn't that why we have a military? Just how much of a premium do we pay these mercenaries vs. our GIs, and which administration officials (if any) have ties to the contractor(s)?

Well, since you really wanted answers to your questions, and couldn't figure out the answers yourself, here they are:
a) Because the alternative is to send even more servicemen and women into Iraq. Without civilian contractors, the U.S. would need to increase the number of servicemen and women in Iraq by around 10%.
b) Sure, that's why we have a military. But as I said, we don't have ENOUGH military without tapping even further into the National Guard or re-deploying our military from other regions of the world.
c) The civilian contractors ( not mercenaries - their roles are defensive not offensive ) are paid anywhere from 4 to 15 thousand dollars a month, depending on their positions ( that's 48 to 180 thousand dollars a year ). Military pay ranges from around 2 to over 13 thousand dollars a month ( that's 24 to 156 thousand dollars a year ). I believe that for the military, their pay is tax-free, as well; and they don't pay for food.

Ron

Thanks; they (US military) also have a pretty good socialized medical system (unlike us ordinary citizens) and GI Bill and retirement benefits too, apparently inlike many of these private soldiers. Here's some more info from an article today in the New York Times:

The company {Blackwater} also received a five-year Navy contract in 2002 worth $35.7 million to train Navy personnel in force protection, shipboard security, search-and-seizure techniques, and armed sentry duties, Pentagon officials said.

The rapid growth of the private security industry has come about in part because of the shrinkage of the American military: there are simply fewer military personnel available to protect officials, diplomats and bases overseas, security experts say.

To meet the rising demand, the companies are offering yearly salaries ranging from $100,000 to nearly $200,000 to entice senior military Special Operations forces to switch careers. Assignments are paying from a few hundred dollars to as much as $1,000 a day, military officials said.

Gen. Wayne Downing, a retired chief of the United States Special Operations Command, said that on a recent trip to Baghdad he ran into several former Delta Force and Seal Team Six senior noncommissioned officers who were working for private security companies.

"It was like a reunion," General Downing said.
04/02/2004 08:57:39 PM · #938
From what I have heard Blackwater is just a small player in the mercenary soldier for hire industry and there are many other companies like them that are getting lots more contracts from the US. The military is being privatized and will be doing "the dirty work" that our military is not allowed to do by law. I don't believe they are there just for guarding food convoys.

In addition, as special forces are going over to these mercenary companies, they are not available to do the work that we need them to be doing, such as hunting down Osama and al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are'nt that many of them to go around. This was one of the reasons that allowed al Qaeda to regroup and strengthen...these special forces were removed from Afghanistan when we went to war in Iraq.

I also wonder just how loyal they will be out there in the field when an enemy organization pays them more.
04/02/2004 09:59:16 PM · #939
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

From what I have heard Blackwater is just a small player in the mercenary soldier for hire industry and there are many other companies like them that are getting lots more contracts from the US. The military is being privatized and will be doing "the dirty work" that our military is not allowed to do by law. I don't believe they are there just for guarding food convoys.

In addition, as special forces are going over to these mercenary companies, they are not available to do the work that we need them to be doing, such as hunting down Osama and al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are'nt that many of them to go around. This was one of the reasons that allowed al Qaeda to regroup and strengthen...these special forces were removed from Afghanistan when we went to war in Iraq.

I also wonder just how loyal they will be out there in the field when an enemy organization pays them more.

You should print out these posts and send copies to the CIA, FBI, NSC, and each of the members of the U.S. House and Senate, and file them so that you can present them as evidence when your suspicions are validated. Then you can write a book and sell a million copies. It's obvious that the current administration is not paying attention to you.
Yet.

04/02/2004 10:09:31 PM · #940
I imagine that there will be alot of books coming out on these times, if we survive them...that is if we're not gagged.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

From what I have heard Blackwater is just a small player in the mercenary soldier for hire industry and there are many other companies like them that are getting lots more contracts from the US. The military is being privatized and will be doing "the dirty work" that our military is not allowed to do by law. I don't believe they are there just for guarding food convoys.

In addition, as special forces are going over to these mercenary companies, they are not available to do the work that we need them to be doing, such as hunting down Osama and al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are'nt that many of them to go around. This was one of the reasons that allowed al Qaeda to regroup and strengthen...these special forces were removed from Afghanistan when we went to war in Iraq.

I also wonder just how loyal they will be out there in the field when an enemy organization pays them more.

You should print out these posts and send copies to the CIA, FBI, NSC, and each of the members of the U.S. House and Senate, and file them so that you can present them as evidence when your suspicions are validated. Then you can write a book and sell a million copies. It's obvious that the current administration is not paying attention to you.
Yet.
04/03/2004 12:34:03 AM · #941
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I imagine that there will be alot of books coming out on these times, if we survive them...that is if we're not gagged.


i would have to agree. :/
04/06/2004 08:59:04 PM · #942
a great speech by Ted Kennedy
04/07/2004 09:33:37 PM · #943
interview on NPR with John Dean - the whistle blower on the Nixon Watergate scandel
04/07/2004 09:55:49 PM · #944
and they don't pay for food.

They do pay for food. It is deducted from their pay. Marines pay $75 per week. Plus it costs $600 to buy their own desert camies for a tour in afghanistan.
04/07/2004 11:32:53 PM · #945
Originally posted by emorgan49:

and they don't pay for food.

They do pay for food. It is deducted from their pay. Marines pay $75 per week. Plus it costs $600 to buy their own desert camies for a tour in afghanistan.
They do pay for food. It is deducted from their pay. Marines pay $75 per week. Plus it costs $600 to buy their own desert camies for a tour in afghanistan. [/quote]

You are technically correct - they do pay for food, BUT...
Military members receive a "Basic Allowance for Subsistence" that is designed to offset the cost of food. Enlisted members receive from $250 to $260 per month, Officers receive $175 per month. Ref HERE.
Likewise, enlisted military receive a clothing allowance of $406 to $489 per year ( after three years ). They receive an initial allowance of $1,172 to $1,409.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not in the military any more, but those figures came from the DOD.

Ron
04/07/2004 11:51:58 PM · #946
I was just commenting that most of the kids in Iraq and Afghanistan are very poorly paid. They are young and not officers. With two years of service they make between 13,000 and 20,000 a year. Then food and uniforms and other gear are duducted from their pay. When the hazardous duty bonus was taken away last summer it was a slap in the face. Hazardous duty pay was $75 per month. Without quibbling over the exact numbers, the pay is pretty low for what they are risking.
04/15/2004 02:28:09 PM · #947
Good to see the corrections coming out more quickly when the US president gets the facts wrong on the WMD issues.

Bush mispoke on mustard gas volumes
04/15/2004 02:47:08 PM · #948
Originally posted by Gordon:

Good to see the corrections coming out more quickly when the US president gets the facts wrong on the WMD issues.

Bush mispoke on mustard gas volumes


Perhaps, once again, you ignore the fact that Bush introduced his statement with a personal disclaimer. The full quote is

Originally posted by BUSH:

"Colonel Gadhafi made the decision, and rightly so, to disclose and disarm for the good of the world," Bush said, referring to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. "By the way, they found, I think, 50 tons of mustard gas, I believe it was, in a turkey farm, only because he was willing to disclose where the mustard gas was. But that made the world safer."
( emphasis mine ).

Note the introductory words I THINK. He didn't state it as fact nor imply that it was. He was sure that there WAS mustard gas, and that there was a large quantity of it. But he never said that it WAS 50 tons. In fact he made it clear that he might be wrong on the quantity both BEFORE and AFTER the quantity was mentioned.

Don't you ever use phrases like "I believe", or "I think" Or are you ALWAYS 100% quotable even when the quotes are taken OUT-OF-CONTEXT?

Give me a break. And Bush, too.

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-04-15 14:48:05.
04/15/2004 02:49:30 PM · #949
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Good to see the corrections coming out more quickly when the US president gets the facts wrong on the WMD issues.

Bush mispoke on mustard gas volumes


Give me a break. And Bush, too.


You don't need to get so defensive, that you feel the need to defend a compliment. I'm glad to see that the corrections and revisions are being made in a more timely fashion. Nothing to defend there - the article even gave the complete context, so I'm not quite sure what you feel was being misrepresented.

Message edited by author 2004-04-15 14:50:29.
04/15/2004 02:59:07 PM · #950
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Good to see the corrections coming out more quickly when the US president gets the facts wrong on the WMD issues.

Bush mispoke on mustard gas volumes


Give me a break. And Bush, too.


You don't need to get so defensive, that you feel the need to defend a compliment. I'm glad to see that the corrections and revisions are being made in a more timely fashion. Nothing to defend there - the article even gave the complete context, so I'm not quite sure what you feel was being misrepresented.


If anyone neglects to actually follow the link that you posted, and read the article in its entirety, they might actually get the impression from YOUR introduction to that link that "the US president gets the facts wrong on the WMD issues". That's why I feel it necessary to get defensive. He didn't get the facts wrong - he never claimed that the "50 tons" number was a "fact".

Ron
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 04:10:09 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 04:10:09 PM EDT.