American military hires guards to protect them!

[Angus]

From Pei:
"Lord Flasheart:
You should treat your aircraft like you treat your woman!

Captain Blackadder:
So you should take your plane out to dinner and a movie?

Lord Flasheart:
No, get in her 5 times a day and take her to heaven and back!"

Umm, wasn't it George that said that dinner line?

Anyway, remember "She has a tounge like an electric eel, and loves the taste of a man's toncils",  

[SunTracker]

Love it or leave it!

[Finrod]

GScholz, I agree with you on most points but I don't believe the current US Gov't has "unprecedented power". I tend to lean more toward sociologist Thomas Carlson's assesment of what he called "The Yankee Go Home Generation". The current generation of Americans running the majority of busineses and the governments at all levels grew up in a time when America went out into the world in an attempt to do great and wonderous things. We spent huge quantities on foreign aid and programs to help countries other then America. Yet each night we turned on our televisions and were greeted with crowds waving signs and yelling for us to leave and go home. Carlson maintains that it was only a matter of time before America took on a much colder attitude.  I think we are seeing his prediction come true, which interestingly enough, he wrote in 1964. I've even heard people say they belive we should totally pull out of the UN, and run the whole organization out of the US. When I ask them why they say that, the response is generally along the lines of, "What did they ever do for us?" I'm not sure, other then the Patriot Act, that the US Gov't really has any more power then it ever has, but I am sure the American population is feeling much less forgiving and charitable about anything outside our borders.

[Dago]

GScholz, you can attempt to analyze, explain and qualify mikos nonsense all you care to, the basic facts remain unchanged.

1) He constantly berates our nation in each and every manner he can find possible

2) He completely misconstrued or intentionally misinterperted the article to serve his purpose, that of finding another way to find fault or disparge anything American

3) His reference is quite clear :

"our army's ground troops, which quickly become a politically-correct welfare agency for unwed mothers"

He isn't discussing "the military" as a whole, he is laying insult on our ground troops. Nothing hard to understand or interpret there.

That statement is not ambivalent.  It does not need your explanation or qualification.  He chooses not to recognize that our nations ground troops are without question the best trained, best equipped finest military fighting force in the world today, or ever in recorded history.  Instead he attempts to stereotype and disparage them without reason, without explanation or justification.  That he is wrong both in the accuracy of his statement and in his motive is obvious.

The article he quotes is pretty clear to anyone who reads it, the Col. is riding in/with a civilian contractor who uses an outside contracted security firm.  The Col, recognizing the fact that security is already provided, does not bother to assign or require additional troops to perform what would be a redundant task.   Only miko could/would try to intentionally misconstrue the obvious to use it in a manner that allows him to insult US ground troops.

Your speil is surprisingly similar to the manner miko speaks.  It says nothing really, just  a lot of attempted intellectual blather.

dago

[Dago]

The United States of America or just America is an abstract entity that is usually referred to as a body politic, organization or government.

Gee, and here us deluded feel it refers to the whole of a nation to include the government and its leaders, its people, its economic corporations, its military, its guiding doctrines including the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and its landmass.  Thank God we have a single Norwegian to help us understand.

Americans are real people.

Thank you for noticing, I have always appreciated someone with a firm grasp of the obvious.

Some seem to have the problem of distinguishing between criticism of the abstract entity known as a government and criticism of Americans.

And some fail to realize that this being a Republic, it would be easy to feel that our nation and its government is a reflection of the people, so a criticism of the nation in anyway is a shared criticism of the people.  People who find some small measure of satisfaction in insulting our nation probably don't think about that fact.

Likewise some people like Dago has a problem distinguishing between the abstract entity known as the military and the real people commonly referred to as the troops or the soldiers.

Oh, I don't think it takes a genius to believe miko was referring to the troops or soldiers when he directly said "our army's ground troops, which quickly become a politically-correct welfare agency for unwed mothers" . He didn't say "military".

The only thing a person can contribute to being a soldier is his or her own personality and strength of character. Everything else is defined and given by the military organization.

True enough, but not even close to relevant to this discussion or this thread.

The soldiers equipment, training, tactics, tasks, orders and morality are all provided or given by the abstract organization known as the military. I emphasized morality for a reason. The military whom in turn are formed and controlled by the government can mould a soldier through training and indoctrination to be anything from a devote defender of a nation like the soldiers of the US Army, or a brutal killing machine like those the SS Einsatzgruppen.

With some exception, this again is true.  But again, I find it irrelevant to mikos original post or anything else in this thread.  Do you just like to talk?

To my understanding Miko did not in the slightest criticize the US troops.

So you find stereotyping in a negative manner, painting a large professional group (who risk their lives daily) with a condescending statement not to be acting in a critical manner towards that group? I for one think they deserve better, think the deserve our support, respect and appreciation.

 

He criticized the US government for hiring mercenaries to do what Miko feels to be the job of the US military.

So do you also fail to grasp the situation easily understood by others too? That the security team mentioned is in the employ of a civilian contractor who the Colonel happens to be with at the time?  That the US Army does not provide security to each and every civilian contractor in Iraq?

Is this  His "unwed mothers" comment was likewise a criticism of the US government who define and control the military.

Now that is a convienient misinterpertation that may serve your arguement, but it ignores the factual constext of his statement.

A soldier cannot change the military, only the government and to some extent the military organization itself can do that.

Again, stating the obvious in general, but in actuality, individual soldiers have in history brought about change to the military.

To my understanding Miko believes the US government's policy is turning the US military into a welfare institution.

Of course, that wasn't the intent of this thread, it may be his opinion, but it is an opinion that even considered in the furthest abstract has no relevance to the article quoted or his attempting to insult the capabilities or confidence in our ground troops to provide adequate security for an officer.

Another thing. ....and God knows what else.

More irrelevant blather.

This is just my opinion of course.

And you are welcome to it.  It is one of the rights, the right to form and hold ones own opinion that our nations military provides and protects for us, the citizens of the United States of America.  Fortunately, you also have that right, and you can thank the soldiers of many nations who fought so bravely and paid so dearly to protect that right for you too.  But, even with our differances, with your experiences and knowledge, I am sure you are more than aware of that.

I would like you to consider this, that in this discussion, in this thread, my overall observation has been that the only ones that have in anyway agreed or defended miko were Europeans, I think most every American (accepted definition to mean Citizens of the United States of America) who has posted in this thread have not agreed with miko, have not accepted his version that the article illustrates regarding the lack of confidence in our nations ground troops.

But then, most Americans don't have a hate filled agenda as miko does, and I don't include miko when I use the word "American".

dago

[59bassman]

Originally posted by GScholz
The power of the USA in the world is dwindling, and has been since the fall of the USSR.

LOL ok If you say so.

[miko2d]

Dago: Sad but not surprising that at a time when most people are "supporting our troops", you are attacking and critizing them.

 It only seems so to you because you are an idiot.
 I believe that our soldiers are good enough to protect our officers. The suggestion "Why don't we disband our army's ground troops" was a sarcasm - look up that word in a dictionary.
 It is people who think that our army is not capable of accomplishing the ordinary tasks and needs mercenaries that do not support our troops.

I agree with Martlet, whats this "we" business?  Surely you aren't trying to equate yourself with Americans?

 I am a citizen of the US of A and a taxpayer in the top bracket. I was told that my money bought me the best troops in the world. I would liek that to be true or I would like that to be made true - even if we have to scrap the welfare and redirect the funds into the military budget.

How typical that failiing the ability to present a good arguement or any facts,  you resort to fabricating a pathetic little "converstation".

 I presented a fact - the US officer relying on foreign mercenary bdyguards.
 The fictional dialog clearly marked as such by "I can imagine the conversation" hardly qualifies as "fabrication". Fabrication is a forgery presented as truth.
 Somehow Col. Tom O'Donnell got foreign mercenary bodyguards instead of US military detail. Somebody have decided that US military is not good enough or strong enough to furnish him with protection.
 You seem to share that opinion if you think it was OK.

Dago: I do. I know plenty of them. My son is a Paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne, and currently serving in Iraq. I have met a lot of his fellow soldiers, both enlisted and officers. They are fantastic people, young, bright, full of life and energy, and completly professional in everything they do.

 I am sure they are. If I was a US officer in need of bodyguard, I would not hesitate to entryst my life to them. I would not hear about foreign mercenaries to be assigned to me.
 I think what Col. Tom O'Donnell allowed is a disgrace.

 Your claim hyppocritcal support of US troopers while you believe it's OK for US officers to be protected by foreign mercenaries - some patriot you are...

 As for US military becoming "politically-correct welfare agency for unwed mothers", it is true and every supporter of US military should be as outraged about it as I am.


AKIron: Seemed to me and likely others that Miko was slandering US armed forces in his musings.

 How come an officer using foreign mercenaries for his protection is not slandering US armed forces but my bringing that fact to your knowlege  and being outtraged about it is slander?

AKIron: You want to insult our troops, go ahead, we see it for what it is. Just don't expect not to be called on it.

 If I see mr. Tom O'Donnell in person, I wold not hesitate to insult him. What does it have to do with "insulting our troops"?


Finrod: As I read the original article, I'm trying to determine if this was anything other then one Colonel hoping a ride (I have done this numerous times) with a civie convoy.

 I wish it were true. But unless the author mislead us, the following is pretty specific - no ride with a civie convoy:

...the two-vehicle convoy passed a heavy concrete divider...

 Conrad Blything drove our heavily armored Toyota Land Cruiser and Braan Protorius - Pottie to his colleagues and charges - rode shotgun. Or more accurately, rode AK-47. Task Force Shield commander Col. Tom O'Donnell, fresh off 10 days in the United States briefing National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice's deputy on the progress of providing security for the Iraqi oil pipeline, and I rode in the back seat.

 Trailing us in an unarmored Jeep were the rest of the Erinys Co. team assigned to protect O'Donnell. Both vehicles were...

ravells: It's interesting to see that dago (not that I have anything against him) has a nerve that can be touched.

 He is an idiot. He thinks protesting the refusal of US officers to rely on US troops and US army recruiting "welfare mothers" and other riff-raff is "badmouthing" his son. If he had an ounce of brain he would join me in my outrage. If he says his son is a good soldier, he should be good enough to guard a US officer.


jamusta: The only branch that trains Security guards are the Marines (MSG) for embassy duty and other such duties.

 We just sent few dozens of them to guard our Haiti embassy. I am sure we could spare a couple to protect the colonel.

We are not trained to be body guards or to be a police force in some hostile country. My personal feeling is we are not properly trained for such missions.

 I bet US soldiers are good enough to be trained for whatever needs arise from real-life needs.


Dago: BTW miko, what became of your little criminal buddy who loots weapons when the lights go out? Here's hoping he is doing 10 to 15 hard time as someones little rump ranger.

 The american son of an american girlfirend of my amefican co-worker got 6 month jailtime from an american judge.
 Do you think that reflects badly on my non-amercian character?

 miko

[Dago]

miko, do you use a mirror when you backpedal to see where you are going?

dago

[Dago]

The american son of an american girlfirend of my amefican co-worker got 6 month jailtime from an american judge.
Do you think that reflects badly on my non-amercian character?  

No, but how ironic that after you thought having a criminal escape the legal justice system by running to the military, and then learning a higher standard is held in accepting applicants, you then badmouth the men and women who do in fact meet the standard required to enlist.

dago

[Dago]

Quite telling how miko chooses not to answer some questions that are directly put to him.  Very sad how he also refuses to accept what is obvious to others.  Seems doing so doesnt fit his agenda.

He starts this ridiculous thread because failing the basic ability of comprehension, he pretends an Army officer chose to rely on a contract civilian security firm.

When others point out that in reality, the officer is just accompanying a contract firm that is escorted by a security firm, and he is not in effect showing a "the refusal of US officers to rely on US troops ", miko choose to ignore this obvioius reality, you see it doesnt feed into his anti-everything American agenda.

He says "and US army recruiting "welfare mothers" and other riff-raff " after he leaned the reality that a worthless criminal friend would not be able to escape prosecution by hiding in the military.  It seems learning that the United States military has recruting standards that they do in fact adhere to  is something to ignore and instead he choose to ridicule through stereotyping the quality of recruits.  In this he displays both a lower level of intelligence, comprehension and maturity that others have mistakenly given him credit for.

Miko, I welcome your proof that the US military is now stafffed by unwed mothers, that they are now recruiting same, and what exactly would be wrong with someone who is an unwed mother actually joining the military, learning a skill to support herself and her child for the future rather than relying on welfare!  

It actually seems to me that the military would be a good place for a young unwed mother to turn her life around, to provide shelter, food, medical care and security for her child/children.  Also, as I mentioned, it would allow her to learn a skill and give her a future and prevent her from just being a burden on the tax roles.  If she can and will carry out duties assigned, where is the problem?  A large number of military roles never require deployment, and quite possibly many of those "unwed mothers" you seem to hold in disdain might have families they can fall back on to be guardians of their children if they did deploy.

But, I don't expect you to answer that question, you always avoid the hard questions that don't have answers in some Libertarian phamplet.

As far as the Army using contractors in any role in Iraq, every contract employee is one less soldier taken away from his normal duties, and one less strain placed on an admittedly overtaxed military.

But be sure, let noone doubt the quality of abilities of our Armed Forces, as much as you would try to do that miko.

Seems you missed the news report by the way of the General visiting a base recently when it was attacked by RPG and small arms fire.  It was the 82nd Airborne that responded, that protected the General and in doing so killed two of your fellow American haters.

dago

[Monk]

Nothing new here, the Gov't including the military use contract PD often.

Most Officers (TDY types)in country for short visits will have a contract PD with them.

Where is the problem?  

BTW, if your watching the tube and see nonuniformed types around they are probably not contractors.

[miko2d]

Dago: miko, do you use a mirror when you backpedal...

 Backpedal in you imagination.

Dago: No, but how ironic that after you thought having a criminal escape the legal justice system by running to the military

 First, I was seeking a legal advice on a legal course of action that a judge would endorce. If you cannot tell between a legal and illegal.
 Second, I asked the questions on behalf of my co-worker who does not participate in a forum with so varied audience.
 Third, people that got in trouble with authority could be better soldiers than the worthless sluts that military seems to attract now that the "standard required to enlist" has been lowered.

Dago: When others point out that in reality, the officer is just accompanying a contract firm that is escorted by a security firm, and he is not in effect showing a "the refusal of US officers to rely on US troops ", miko choose to ignore this obvioius reality, you see it doesnt feed into his anti-everything American agenda.

 What a liar. All that is just the result of your lying imagination.
 Where is anyone pointing to me that "officer is just accompanying a contract firm that is escorted by a security firm"? Just quote the poster in this thread that points anything of that kind and the place in the article that indicates that.

...the two-vehicle convoy passed a heavy concrete divider...

Conrad Blything drove our heavily armored Toyota Land Cruiser and Braan Protorius - Pottie to his colleagues and charges - rode shotgun. Or more accurately, rode AK-47. Task Force Shield commander Col. Tom O'Donnell, fresh off 10 days in the United States briefing National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice's deputy on the progress of providing security for the Iraqi oil pipeline, and I rode in the back seat.

Trailing us in an unarmored Jeep were the rest of the Erinys Co. team assigned to protect O'Donnell. Both vehicles were...

 So Conrad Blything and Braan Protorius who are mercenery security guards are occupying the front seats of the "heavily armored Toyota Land Cruiser". Col. Tom O'Donnell and the journalist Chuck Yarborough are in the back.
 The unarmored jeep - the only other car in their group, carries more of the mercenaries.
 All the the mercenaries are specifically "assigned to protect O'Donnell". There is no mention of "a contract firm"  that the officer could accompany or a "security firm" that is that is supposed to escort your imaginary "contract firm". Those are just figments of you imagination.

Miko, I welcome your proof that the US military is now stafffed by unwed mothers...

 Lori Piestewa[/i], an example of a American Heroism and a divorced (church-going Catholic!!?)  mother of two children who was the first US female soldier killed in the Iraq war.
 What kind of woman would abandon two tiny children (four-year-old boy and three-year-old girl at the time of her death) - even if she got pregnant accidentally in her senoir year - I cannot even imagine but apparently that kind of psychological profile is fine with for the US military, as well as being a weak woman of about 5 feet tall.
 And her reasons to enlist are cited as "the sheer boredom of life in Tuba City left her few other options when it came to feeding her ambitions and her children".

 Captured in the same ambush is Shoshana Johnson single mother of a 2-year-old daughter.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml

from the Commission's (Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, report date November 15, 1992) report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"

 That's a respsoncible soldier's behavoir - getting pregnant and unfit for duty, right? Males do that all the time.

Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader's Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest's archives.

 "I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn't. It wasn't even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MoreWomenLetters.shtml

"Fred,
My last tour was during Desert Storm, [which was] basically the first real test of females in a combat zone and, in my opinion, failed miserably.
 For example, an effort was made to reunite the females in our outfit with their husbands that were serving in different units to celebrate Thanksgiving together. The result was that 3 females evacuated due to pregnancy following these "conjugal visits". Furthermore, one of the girl Sgts decided to cash in on her gender and amassed quite a sum of money in her off hours."

"Fred,
 It appears that a significant number of the women in the Reserve units are minority single mothers[/i]. In some units, they seem to be a majority of the women in those units, but that may be merely my overreacting to what I was seeing.

Each is supposed to have a "child care" plan provided as part of their mobility record. However, upon questioning, those few I talked to revealed that they had no such plan. Call-ups frequently result in the minority (and some white single mothers) women suddenly "discovering" their mobility child care plan won't work for some reason (in fact, it never existed and I even suspect some of planning it that way). We find out that we lose 10-15% of each unit being called up. In war, a 15% combat loss is considered devastating."

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilWomenII.shtml

there is an excellent video out by PBS of all places called Politics and Warriors: Women in the Military. The footage of the trainees would put to rest any notion of "gender equity" -- the film shows men flying over logs, leaping over walls, ripping through obstacles courses and women pathetically floundering. Small, weak women demurely approach a dummy and say in a high pitched, sweet voice, "kill," while lighting tapping its "head" with the butt of a rifle, while men aggressively tear at the thing and charge on to the next target.

 While a feminist General says in a voice-over that women can carry men, albeit maybe 2-4 women are needed but that women can get the job done, incredibly damning footage reveals the contrary. On the one hand, men with great ease jump on top of a horizontal pole and carry a heavy rubber casualty on a stretcher over it, while a group of women flounder pathetically at the same task (albeit a lower pole if one is observant). The stretcher is pushed against the pole at an angle, since they can not push it over, and the casualty slides off of the thing. As the women discuss what they should be doing, one of them says over and over "We're losing the casualty, we're losing the casualty." Seeing is believing! And this video is well worth it.

...and what exactly would be wrong with someone who is an unwed mother actually joining the military, learning a skill to support herself and her child for the future rather than relying on welfare!

 Military is supposedely there to protect us, not to serve as a welafare and education service, so the taxpayers are cheated.

 As for a woman herself, a woman is a rotten mother is she would consider abandoning small children for several years - and after those years not being involbed in their upbringing, she will be a stranger to them, not a mother.

If she can and will carry out duties assigned

 Some hypothetical woman can. Most of those enrolled in our military cannot

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."

 Theck the percentages of women failing different tasks in the same link.

 There are about 210,000 women in US military, by the way.

 miko

[Dago]

Thank you for making yourself look even more stupid then normal.  You must work at it.


dago

[Raubvogel]

I usually don't agree with you, but you have a point Miko. It's especially prevelant in the support units. I work in a military prison at the moment, and I'd estimate that 50% of the guards are female, most of them under 23 years old. On an average shift there are 10-12 guards to control 130+ inmates. I would be seriously concerned for everyone's safety if a riot ever broke out.
The percentage of these young females who get pregnant and get out, or arrive at their first duty station unable to pass the physical fitness test is embarrassing. A total waste of Army funds. Trying to instruct them in tactical training is often an exercise in futility. There are exceptions who pull their weight and function well, but overall it seems to be a real problem. IMHO it's time to cut through the politically correct crap and restrict women to solely administrative/garrison posts.

[Dago]

I can't find your "article" miko, but I found this:

About that office: Before we left Nasiriyah to come to Baghdad, O’Donnell had a brief morning meeting with a high-ranking official of the Iraqi Police there. Security at the oil refineries has been made a Ministry of Oil responsibility, which is why O’Donnell’s Task Force Shield hired Erinys International to train and field a guard force – which eventually will be turned over to be run by Iraqis.
 

Gee, maybe the Colonel is working with a security firm for a reason?  Aww gee, but that doesnt serve your typical purpose of slamming US military capabilities now does it?

Even you cannot argue that the US military should be guards everywhere for every foreign installation.


dago