 sj |
||
|
||
Innocent private contractors in Iraq?
|
|
|
Subject: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 19 May 04 - 11:42 PM For those of you who think that that its all above board to hire private contractors for war duties, please read this about Titan. I hope they lose their shirts! I copied this from an article in the Washington Post (I think); I'll get back to you with the link. In recent weeks, as a result of its translation contracts, Titan is part of the scandal of Iraqi detainees being abused at a prison outside Baghdad. At least one Titan interpreter at the prison, Adel Nakhla, has been identified as a suspect, and John Israel, who works for a Titan subcontractor, has been accused of lying to Army investigators. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 19 May 04 - 11:46 PM Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41155-2004May19.html Why does the blue clicky always double the link? Someday I'll have this figured out! link repaired. Mudelf |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Jim McCallan Date: 19 May 04 - 11:51 PM Hi Diana. You're forgetting to put brackets at the start, and at the end: <a href=http://www.mudcat.org>Mudcat</a> Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Jim McCallan Date: 19 May 04 - 11:55 PM ... eg: The Washington Post Article ...or: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41155-2004May19.html Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 20 May 04 - 02:33 AM Dianavan: As far as I can see, Titan is trying to fulfill the needs of the contract they were awarded. There's no clear case of wrong-doing mentioned -- one of the subcontractors is a suspect (not a Titan employee). There are allegations that the translators they found aren't qualified and counter-assertions that they are qualified and were tested. No facts on either side. So why is it the company should lose their shirts, in your estimation? For taking the contract in the first place? In all fairness, I should add that I work for a different division of the same company. A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: artbrooks Date: 20 May 04 - 09:02 AM There was an letter about a week ago in our local paper about contractors and contractor employees. Sorry...no link...it didn't make the electronic version of the Albuquerque Journal. A lady wrote in about the "contractor=evil" equation that many people here seem to believe and told about her son, who had been unable to get a job in the States and was now driving a truck for KBR, delivering food to military bases in Iraq. He is unarmed, his truck is unarmored, and the military escort is apparently very limited. He is well paid, because his salary is based upon US pay scales, he gets overtime for the 40+ extra hours he puts in each week, and food and lodging, such as it is, is provided. I suspect that he is pretty typical of contractor employees. About the Titan people specifically, the article linked above says that they have 200-250 translators in Iraq and Afganistan. Of these, one interpreter at the prison has been identified as a suspect, and [one] who works for a Titan subcontractor, has been accused of lying to Army investigators. That means that less than 1% of their employees have been accused of a possible crime, which is not the same thing as guilty. Perhaps we are jumping to conclusions a bit too fast? |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 20 May 04 - 09:52 PM Yes, it is probably wrong to jump to conclusions but if the the CIA didn't want the job, why would anyone else want it. Perhaps its because the job description was too stinky. I don't like the idea of private contractors engaged in war time activities because they are not held to the same standards as the government or the military. The chain of command is very difficult to determine. There is no altruism, only profit. As to the young man who couldn't find a job in the States so decided to go to Iran and drive a truck with no protection... hmmm.... maybe thats because the unemployment is so high in the States. Maybe he wouldn't have to take those kind of risks if the economy was healthy. Maybe he'd be going to school or learning a trade if the educational system wasn't so cash-strapped. I have always viewed war as nothing more than profitting from the pain of others. I see the situation in Iraq as even more so. Amos, I hope they lose their shirts because they have structured their business to meet the needs of the Bush administration. I am surprised that you work for them. Are you in the homeland security division? Does your job make anyone miserable? |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 21 May 04 - 01:39 AM Seems the FBI didn't want the job either. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: michaelr Date: 21 May 04 - 02:22 AM Riiight... it wasn't them, it was a subcontractor... Where's the accountability here? For the military to rent out their stated objectives to shadowy civilians who are not under their command is an obvious copout and abdication of responsibility. I'd say it's dishonest and immoral (oh wait, that's policy now, sorry). And don't give me that sob story about the poor truck driver who had to go to Iraq because he couldn't find work in the US. IMO, anyone who goes over there to make money off the immense crime being perpetrated on the Iraqui people deserves what he gets. These scumbags are way worse than the soldiers. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 21 May 04 - 08:52 AM Michaelr: The policy of contracting out tasks is set by those on the government side of the equation. As for "shadowy civilians", I can't speak for other companies, by Titan people tend to be energetic and go-getter types, smart and able but considerate and friendly. Nothing shadowy about the ones I know. The accountability you are talking about is for the GovWorks decision to use civilian resources. But it makes sense if it costs them more in time and effort to use registered government people so I am really not clear on why you think this is a copout. Anyone who accepts a government contract is up to his ears in accountability and checkpoints. But probably less so in a line position like translation. So who is it you believe are scumbags? A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: michaelr Date: 21 May 04 - 06:47 PM Hi Amos. I quote from an article in The New Republic by Joshua Hammer, Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek. The whole article is here, but it's subscription only. (Italics are mine) BAGHDAD DISPATCH Cowboy Up by Joshua Hammer Post date 05.13.04 | Issue date 05.24.04 In the last few months, Baghdad's corporate warriors have all but taken over the city. They cruise the streets in late-model SUVs, the long, steel barrels of their automatic weapons protruding from open windows. They've essentially taken over a dozen hotels in the capital. I counted as many as 100 "security consultants," as most prefer to be called, lounging poolside at the Al Hamra on several evenings this week - four or five times the number I saw in my previous visit to the city. As many as 20,000 contractors are currently believed to be in Iraq, and the number keeps growing… …many troops resent the fact that the private gunmen earn as much as $1,000 per day – 10 times the average Marine's salary. And several told me that they find it alarming that so many private gunmen are on the loose in Iraq, unbeholden to military regulations… …The uneasy relationship between the troops and the contractors reached its nadir on March 31, when the four Blackwater men were brutally murdered in Fallujah. The previous day, the four contractors… had reportedly escorted a food convoy to a nearby Marine base. They spent the night at the base… and then left the next morning for Baghdad, inexplicably taking a shortcut through the resistance stronghold… They had failed to inform anyone on the base about their plans, a direct violation of military policy. Many (troops) were incensed that the mercenaries had forced the military's hand. Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the First Marine Expeditionary Force in Fallujah,… told me he'd had a plan in place to establish military control over Fallujah but that intense political pressure to invade the city following the Blackwater killings obliged him to move far more quickly than he had wanted… He was told that Washington demanded immediate action. Days later, Conway sent two battalions into Fallujah, where they killed hundreds of Iraqi combatants and civilians, leveled much of the city, and caused a wave of international opprobrium that ultimately forced Conway to withdraw his troops. …The brutal attack seems unlikely to dampen the contracting boom. "…Nobody's talking about leaving Iraq," I was told by one "security consultant"… "For one thing, the money's too damn good." He also pointed out that most of the contractors are the hardest of the hard core - veterans of such elite outfits as the U.S. Special Forces; the Rhodesian Selous Scouts, the former special forces of the Rhodesian white regime; and Executive Outcomes, the now-disbanded South African mercenary army that fought in Sierra Leone and Angola. Those, Amos, are the scumbags I referred to. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 21 May 04 - 07:51 PM Thank-you Michaelr - A very informative article. I have neither the credentials nor the first hand knowledge but it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to put two and two together. I wish National pride would stand aside and allow people to understand that this war is all about profit. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is there to liberate Iraq or bring democracy or fight terrorism should give their head a shake. Bush is a scumbag and so is Rumsfeld. How dare they hire mercenaries and profiteers in the name of freedom? I wish people would stop making excuses for bullies. It is those who stand around cheering them on that give them the power to continue their highly immoral occupations. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 21 May 04 - 08:18 PM This has little or nothing to do with Titan people who accept work as translators. Soldiers of Fortune have always been scumbags and have always been with us. However, it seems clear to me that if the government is so pressed for translation skills that they need to hire civilians, it is not profiteering to accept such a contract, anymore than it is profiteering to sell doughnuts or socks to the Department of Defense. Or am I missing something? A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Bobert Date: 21 May 04 - 08:27 PM Well, privatizing may insure that the US governemnt won't get stuck having to pay benefits, including retirement pensions, but it runs the risks of incompetent people being asked to do jobs that at best are very difficult. Throw in international laws that these imcompetent folks may break and the world has a big, big problem... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: michaelr Date: 21 May 04 - 08:50 PM It seems to me there's a vast grey area between an innocent translator (giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Amos) and a battle-hardened mercenary. The problem is accountability. If these people are not under direct military command, you have, in effect, a bunch of loose cannons running around doing who-knows-what. We're in bad enough trouble in Iraq without that. And yes, if you're making a profit from this illegal and immoral occupation, I will call that profiteering. Any man, woman, or company of integrity would make a point of having nothing to do with this operation, if not for ethical principles, then for fear of taint by association. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 21 May 04 - 09:44 PM Well, I have often thought I was working for the wrong people, and consider running off to the wilds of Vancouver or some place like that and eke out a living carving pinecones. Maybe when the kid is out of college I'll do that. But, just in case there is any question about it, my division develops software and integrates systems, has done the same sort of stuff for a dozen years, and does it here in the US. A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Donuel Date: 21 May 04 - 09:47 PM In the war biz in Iraq the private contractors are sometimes called the coalition of the billing. A quater mil a year can't be made in the military so many special officers quit to become a private contractor. The effect on the military is a multiplied loss of training time and talent. I know the other kind of people who go for these jobs. They like to joke about what kind of noise various people make when shot in the head. Some of them got kicked of the police force for too many homicides and some are strictly fortune of war sadists who really enjoy the game. Private contractor hit men may be mourned, but not by me. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 21 May 04 - 10:30 PM Amos, Nothing to stop you from developing software and integrating systems in Vancouver. It has a very well-developed technology sector. We are also in the process of planning a beautiful live/work site complete with integrated university facilities. It will, hopefully, be a showcase for the world. Vancouver is one of the most livable cities in the world but there aren't too many pine cone carvers in this neck of the woods. Lots of people keep their careers but change companies according to their conscience. My mother was a miniature, electronic welder (robots have replaced her) and was in high demand in the 60's and 70's. She subcontracted with Boeing (aerospace) until she realized how her work was being used. She then went to work for a medical engineering firm. She also began to feel that her work was being used unethically. She finally ended up in photography and loved every minute. I know that you are not a mercenary or a profiteer but both Titan and CACI are suspect because they have tailored their business to the needs of the Bush admin. In other words, homeland security (spying), translation (interrogation) and military operations, in general. I may be jumping to conclusions but if you look at their mergers and their contracts, I would definitely question their ethics. I know that the needs of family always come first. Do what you have to do and then do whatever makes you happiest. Good luck to you. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 21 May 04 - 10:55 PM From Reuters: "Titan Corp., which provides translators and interpreters to the U.S. Army in Iraq, said it had fired an employee named in a military report about prisoner abuse. But it knew nothing about any criminal inquiry." That is exactly what is wrong with private contractors in a war zone. No military tribunal, no criminal court. He gets fired. There is no justice. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Metchosin Date: 22 May 04 - 12:16 AM Amos, love to have you in BC, but if you're hoping to escape the rat race and take up something creative with pinecones, forget Vancouver, you can't get there from here. Vancouver was a very liveable city 20 years ago, but keep hoping that your US dollar remains high, because the amenities that once made it liveable are going to cost you big time if you wish to plunk yourself down in the Big Smoke. If you manage to get set up on some areas Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands/Sunshine Coast or in some places in the Interior, those options still exist. Vancouver is a hard, tough, driven, city with very little soul left, compared with its former incantation. The setting is still the same, beautiful, but the character has changed. The politics are polarized and strident, based on ideological knee-jerk reactions and little thought given to the consequences. Very few vote for anything, they use their vote to punish incumbent perpetrators. Yet, in spite of seeing an old friend go down a path that one doesn't agree with, there is still much to love, but damn, it's bittersweet. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 22 May 04 - 12:19 AM Thanks for the thoughtful message, Dianavan. I'll keep what you say in mind. I don't any more than you do about the employee in question, but what the report says is that Titan says it did know anything about any criminal enquiry connected with him. He was fired for getting his name in the report, essentially. There was no criminal enquiry, which indicates he probably is not charged with any crime. Why are you assuming he did something criminal? Surely assuming he did, before any facts are found to that effect, is a guarantee of injustice? A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 22 May 04 - 12:21 AM Thanks, Mets. I was thinking of Vancouver Island, where there are probably more pinecones than in the city. :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Metchosin Date: 22 May 04 - 12:47 AM If you ever have the chance, come up for a visit Amos and check it out, we'd be glad to show you around. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 22 May 04 - 02:50 AM For sure, Amos - I lived on a small island for 10 years and still go there in the summer but Vancouver is good for education and work. If you can find work on the islands, go for it. If not, Vancouver is still very livable (if you can afford it). Most people are 'house poor' but happy. Hey Metchosin - I like Vancouver much better now than 20 years ago. 20 years ago it was a little grease-ball town that wanted to be a big city. Yuk! I'd rather be living in a very rural location or in a big city. Small towns and suburbs are not for me. From the perspective of an islander, we used to call Vancouver, Damngoober and Victoria, Bigstoria. That was, of course, an outsiders perspective. Now that I'm here, I have found a small community within this big, beautiful city and it has been very good to me. Its all grown up but the neighborhoods are still intact. As teen-agers, my children have thrived here. So much to do, so many opportunities, so much culture and such a wonderful education. I had to leave my little island paradise so that my children would know and understand many people from many cultures. Now that they are all grown up, I'm just waiting for retirement (3 more years) and I'm going back to my quiet little island. Of course I won't have to worry about finding a job there. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 22 May 04 - 03:02 AM Oh, and Amos, he may not have been charged with any crime but he was named in the Taguba report as one of the main interrogators. Who would charge him, anyway? Iraq? The U.S.? His country of origin? Who would have jurisdiction? Certainly not the military. Probably easier just to fire him and send him home. End of story. Thats what I don't like about private contracts in a war zone. No responsibility whatsoever. Unless you're in the military - then, at least, there are rules, regulations and a chain of command. At least there used to be. I'm through with this thread. I just keep repeating myself. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: GUEST,Sledge Date: 22 May 04 - 03:17 AM Sky news in the UK, this morning reported that so far it has been admitted that 32 prisoners have died in US custody, this figure if true is surely excessive by any stretch of the imagination. One sure way to surrender the moral high ground. Coupled with the increasing amount of video and photographic images we are now seeing of torture, as I have said before, NOT IN MY NAME. Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:30 AM On behalf of 1000 Iraqi detainees, please read the following: http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/06/061004i.html http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/06/061004i.html Sorry about the sloppy job above but its important to know that some lawyers do seem to have a little integrity. No wonder Bush is trying to get out of Iraq and save face - nobody will fight his war, now. His plan to circumvent military law by using private contractors to do his dirty work is failing. It is too risky for even the biggest of corporations. I hope they lose their shirts. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM Dianavan: First of all, I wish you'd be a little more specific about dirty work and about who should lose their shirts. The Titan corporation offers honest employment to thousands of people who are busy doing normal stuff, like writing software for simulators, for example, or satellite software for weather sats, or figuring out how to design UAVs or whatever. They are not causing any misery, as you put it. If your wish comes true it will cause a lot of misery. There haven't been any details released as to why Titan was named in this suit, and I look forward to the revelations. If the heinous implications of the lkawyer's assertions seem to be true, I will move on rapidly. I won't be convinced by a third-person news clipping, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:07 PM Amos, I'm sure Titan employs many who are engaged in right livelihood. What concern me, is that they have jumped on the band wagon of profitting from war. Doesn't matter whether they contracted or sub-contracted, it is the companies responsibility to oversee the actions of their employees. If they want the gain, they must be responsible for the pain. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:55 PM What concern me, is that they have jumped on the band wagon of profitting from war. Which "they" is that? The whole company? The board of directors? The company has always been, among other things, a military contractor. The only thing that has changed is that the military was sent to war. Why does that mean the whole company should lose their shirts, in your opinion? Doesn't make sense to me. Why should Titan be excoriated for a change they didn't originate? A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: DougR Date: 12 Jun 04 - 02:19 PM There is nothing new, or sinister, about the government contracting outside people or companies to do work. Government contracts are awarded all of the time. I, myself, worked on government contracts for seven years when I had my consulting business. Usually, the work is contracted out because it requires some specialization that is not available in one of the departments of the government. Also, contracts may be awarded because it is less expensive for someone with credibility outside government to do the scope of work than for the government to do it. Dianavan: life is not just one big conspiracy, and not all corporations are evil empires. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 04 - 02:32 PM Why, thanks, Doug!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: artbrooks Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:00 PM I think I read somewhere that Titan was involved in providing Arabic-language interpreters to the US military, in Iraq and elsewhere, and one of them may have been involved in the Abu Graib situation to the extent of interpreting questions asked of the detainees. Sounds like significant culpability to me, and the corporation deserves to go under as a result! It also sounds like a bunch of ambulance chasers looking for their next Beemer...or at least I couldn't find anything about any of the lawyers involved waiving fees. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Cruiser Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:37 PM Quote from dianavan: "There is no altruism, only profit." Well put and a very important concept. Some "jobs" are inherently governmental. War is one of them. Cruiser |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 13 Jun 04 - 01:10 AM This from a contractor IN Iraq" I CANNOT GET THE BLUE CLICKY TO WORK! Anyway, I suppose there is a difference between private contractors IN Iraq and private contractors OUTSIDE of Iraq but the motivation seems to be the same. From what I have heard. John Israel may have gone to extremes to get results so that he could get more contracts. Its a fine line, my friends. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Hrothgar Date: 13 Jun 04 - 04:52 AM The advantage of using contractors is that they don't have to be counted when you report military casualties. As civilians, they are only "corollary damage" or some such weasel words. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 04 - 08:18 AM DV's Blue Clicky "Motivation seems to be the same" An easy brush, I would say. Most of the people I have met have the same motivations as anyone else -- they want to do well, get paid and raise their families, pursue hobbies and occasionally get a vacation. Butof course they're not armed security people. Might make a difference. A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Strick Date: 13 Jun 04 - 09:34 AM dianavan, maybe it would help to understand that there's more than one kind of civilian contractor involved here. There are the some civilians providing security but there are even more involved in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure or providing various types of aid. Like Amos, my company has a contract to provide services in Iraq. It's similar to the one we have in Afghanistan or any of several countries where no one's fired a shot in anger in years. We had a similar contract with the State of Oklahoma, for heavens sake. Our guys over there are civilians doing ordinary civilian jobs even if in this instance they're getting hazard pay. It's what we do, at least some of us, any way. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:56 AM OK - So its not whether you are inside or outside of Iraq that makes the difference but its what you are actually employed to do. So lets put it this way - If a company makes machine guns but you just work in payroll, are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Amos - I'm not sure what you mean by an easy brush (I've never heard that before) but I didn't mean it to be insulting. I agree that no matter how you are employed, the motivation is usually the same. Most people are just trying to provide for their families. Since the economy of the U.S. is so wound up in military contracts of some sort, it seems that, in itself, would significantly contribute to the necessity to keep waging wars. Thats probably why its been said that war is good for the economy. War is a good investment. In the short run, it costs the taxpayers but in the long run, many companies benefit and they can hire more people who will spend more money. Sounds logical to me as long as everyone ignores the fact that its still 'blood money'. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Strick Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:41 PM "OK - So its not whether you are inside or outside of Iraq that makes the difference but its what you are actually employed to do. So lets put it this way - If a company makes machine guns but you just work in payroll, are you part of the problem or part of the solution?" No, but if you're hired to manage economic recovery (the equivalent to managing disaster recover as we do when there's a tornado or hurricane in the states we contract with, doing thing like ensuring that victims of the disaster get are aware of all the aid they're entitled to), what you're doing is a trifle different from the guys who used to run with Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner. Confusing the two only serves to hinder people in Iraq getting help however much it makes you feel morally superior in your stubborn insistance that there isn't a difference. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 04 - 07:01 PM I assure you, dianavan, that the very lively issues you are raising are on my mind every day. But I cannot take the easy outsider's position and paint everyone involved wiht the same brush (the easy brush I mentioned). I have to go the hard way and actually consider differences and similarities and facts versus opinions. It is too easy to issue sweeping condemnations for those who are doing something you are not. A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:32 PM Thats true, Amos and I'm not trying to make you or Strick feel 'guilty ' about how you put groceries on the table. I am sure that both of you have long ago rationalized your livelihood. I do question the U.S. rationale for using contractors for military jobs - the same way I would question 'contracting-out' to the private sector of many government jobs. It is especially objectionable to me when the job entails an occupation of another country. There are some pretty serious moral and ethical considerations to taken into account. Private contracting in a war zone leaves the occupied and vulnerable country open to plenty of abuse and the abusers are not liable for any damage they may cause. Sure, the govt. has always contracted out military jobs but never to such an extent as we are seeing in Iraq. I can only think of two reasons why - huge profits and lack of accountability. If the U.S. is going to base their economy on war, they will have to keep making war. If thats the America you want, you can have it. I don't even want it in my backyard. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Amos Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:30 AM Well, perhaps there is no "U.S. of the sort about which you make these general remarls. The nation is not a monolith in any sense. Just because the eejits in DC think they are driving a monolithic entity is no reason for you to be fooled. A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: DougR Date: 14 Jun 04 - 02:06 PM Dianavan: there have been several sincere efforts to explain to you why the government uses contractors to do some types of work. You still are of the same opinion that you were when you posted the thread. Strick and Amos do not need to "rationalize" when it comes to making a living. They both earn their paychecks honestly, just as the accountant does in the company that manufacturers machineguns. Since you steadfastly hold to your original opinion, and nothing anyone posts seems to move you, I can think of only one statement that will satisfy you, and that is, you're right. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: dianavan Date: 14 Jun 04 - 09:11 PM Same-same |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: GUEST,a contractor left behind Date: 27 Jun 04 - 03:59 PM I am a contractor still in Iraq, and I've just recently made the decision to come home. Since I did not complete the length of my contract, my company refuses to bring me home. I am left to fend for myself. Besides paying for my own way out, can anyone give me any advice on what do in this situation? I'm thinking that there must be some legal recourse. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Metchosin Date: 27 Jun 04 - 04:34 PM seek information from sources other than a folk music site. You are a bit lost. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 04 - 05:15 PM If there is an American consul or embassy in the area, I would suggest you contact them. Otherwise borrow a plane ticket. A |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 28 Jun 04 - 01:30 PM I think there will alaways be people like this that defend the obvious bad guys. Maybe they watched too many James Dean movies, where the hero is misunderstood, and the baddy is really the goody. I remember when the IRA was planting bombs in English cities, there was no sense in it. Most English people couldn't have given a damn if Ireland fell through a hole in the in the bottom of the atlantic. Yet the provos had their defenders and if you happened to be in a pub pouring money into the wicked English capitalist system - then you were a legitimate target. Shouldn't worry about it. They would be quick if enough to howl if they found themselves in the firing line like those poor souls in the twin towers. |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: CarolC Date: 28 Jun 04 - 03:01 PM What did the twin towers have to do with Iraq? |
|
Subject: RE: Innocent private contractors in Iraq? From: sledge Date: 28 Jun 04 - 04:16 PM Oh round and round we go. Hope you get home safely. |
| Share Thread: |
