Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StabbyTheIcePic on May 06, 2004, 02:03:46 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/international/middleeast/04CONT.html
Contractors Implicated in Prison Abuse Remain on the Job
By JOEL BRINKLEY and JAMES GLANZ
Published: May 4, 2004
ASHINGTON, May 3 — More than two months after a classified Army report found that two contract workers were implicated in the abuse of Iraqis at a prison outside Baghdad, the companies that employ them say that they have heard nothing from the Pentagon, and that they have not removed any employees from Iraq.
Advertisement
For one of the employees, the Army report recommended "termination of employment" and revocation of his security clearance. For the other, it urged an official reprimand and review of his security clearance.
But J. P. London, chief executive of CACI, one of the companies involved, said in an interview on Monday that "we have not received any information or direction from the client regarding our work in country — no charges, no communications, no citations, no calls to appear at the Pentagon."
Ralph Williams, vice president for communications for Titan, the other company, also said Monday that the company has heard nothing, and that none of Titan's workers have been recalled.
Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Monday evening that they had no information on whether the workers were still on the job or why the report had not been conveyed to the companies.
In a statement issued Monday, CACI defended its employees, saying they are well-trained former military personnel.
The classified Army report asserted that at least one employee of CACI was among those "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib," the Iraqi prison.
It is unclear whether the second employee implicated works for CACI or Titan, since the Army report mentions both companies. Neither company would comment.
CACI said in its statement that one of the men listed in the report "is not and never has been a CACI employee," but the statement did not name him.
Companies with employees in Iraq usually refuse to identify them, citing security concerns.
CACI International, a 41-year-old public company whose main business is information technology — it manages the State Department's e-mail system, for example — said it has opened its own investigation.
But Dr. London noted with apparent irritation that the military still had not provided the company with a copy of the classified military report, completed Feb. 26, that makes allegations about CACI's employees.
Two civilian contractors were cited in the report. One of them, Steven Stephaniwicz, is described as a civilian interrogator, an employee of CACI assigned to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade.
Dr. London said the company opened an intelligence service division in the late 1990's whose mission is "intelligence information collection, analysis, field support and human intelligence that could include these types of interviews." It remains a small part of the business, he added.
Still, Joe Vafi, an analyst who follows the company for Jeffries & Company in San Francisco, said CACI "has hired a lot of former military, former intelligence."
CACI was founded in 1962 as the California Analysis Center, Inc. But as its mission grew more diverse, it changed its name simply to CACI Inc., in 1973.
It has about 9,400 employees and revenues of $843 million last year. About 63 percent of the company's business is under contract to the Defense Department and 29 percent to other federal agencies.
The other contractor implicated, John Israel, identified as a civilian translator assigned to the same brigade, is described in one place in the Army report as a CACI employee and in another as an employee of Titan, which provides translators for the Army throughout Iraq.
They and other civilian contractors, the report says, were allowed to "wander about" the prison "with too much unsupervised, free access to the detainee area."
It further states that both Mr. Israel and Mr. Stephanowicz made false statements to investigators about their knowledge or participation in the abuses, and that Mr. Israel apparently did not have security clearance.
Mr. Williams said Titan would not identify its employees working in Iraq but added, "we have no contracts that involve the physical handling of prisoners. The only service we provide is linguistic services."
Though he would not confirm that Mr. Israel worked for Titan, he said all of Titan's employees are still on the job in Iraq.
Titan, like CACI, is a public company that provides information and communication services under contract to federal defense and intelligence agencies. Founded in 1981, it has about 12,000 employees and revenues of about $2 billion a year.
Neither Mr. Israel nor Mr. Stephanowicz could be located on Monday.
The contracts for these workers are classified, the companies said.
But Angela Styles, who served as an administrator for federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2003, said the rules and statements of work governing federal contractors in this context are usually are quite broad.
"I would be shocked if there was anything more specific than you will assist the D.O.D. with the detention of prisoners," she said.
Allen Weiner, a professor of international law and diplomacy at Stanford University law school, said that ultimately the military commanders are responsible for the contractors' behavior.
"The law of war which applies in times of intense brutality assumes a high degree of control by commanders for the acts of their subordinates," he said.
But he added that, even with that responsibility, the commanders may not have had as much control as they would like.
"One can assume," he said "that once the contract is let, there may not be the same formal operational control that one would expect through the chain of command."
Joel Brinkley reported from Washington for this article and James Glanz from Des Moines.
**** this government. **** its corporate entanglements. **** its stupid wars. **** its apathy and even encouragement of human rights abuses and murders. **** its opaqueness. **** every single cog in its machine responsible for this ****.
I hate my government. I want it to fall, burn, and be replaced. **** everyone who defends this ****. You're idiots.
-
Try Prozac.
-
why do we have private companies involved here? we shouldn't be sub-contracting our war.
it just seems a convienent set up for this administration to distance itself politically from these atrocities.
the more I continue to hear on this subject the more I think we need to have some war-crime tribunals set up.
I was willing to give this administration the benifit of the doubt, and while I have seen nothing to implicate bush directly, the amount of doubt for others in this administration seems to be fading quickly.
-
Because bush can send in 200 mercs into battle, half die, and it wont make the nightly news.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Because bush can send in 200 mercs into battle, half die, and it wont make the nightly news.
AND because they are not part of the "official" military force, the government is not responsible if they do things that are "illegal"
Government: "The contractors did what? Oh, that's not very nice, but we don't control them. Talk to company xyz as they are supplying these individuals."
Its a good way to fight dirty, without actually having to get messy.
-
that was my impression of the situation too. I don't see any other benifit from these contractors.
if somebody has a positive reason why we should use them I wish they'd post it, 'casue I'm having no luck thinking of one.
-
Using contractors to do things such as vehicle maintenance, prison guarding, asphalt repair, etc, frees up soldiers to drive humvees and carry weapons.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Using contractors to do things such as vehicle maintenance, prison guarding, asphalt repair, etc, frees up soldiers to drive humvees and carry weapons.
Yes, but when your using them to fight wars, gaurd and interrogating prisoners of war, you risk violating international laws and human rights. Nothing wrong using independent contractors to do such things as you stated, but when they are beating unarmed civilians to death in prisons the governement might want to rethink its decisions. Which it is not going to do.
-
:rofl
-
just a little curious. what could you possibly find funny on this subject?
-
For every soldier carrying weapons on the fromt line, there are like 9 or 10 in support. There are many jobs which can be outsourced to the 'kelly girls' of the military support world.
Once the conflict is resolved, the career of the temp is up to whoever the subcontractor is, not the DoD or the VA.
But just like somebody who outsources their taxes the IRS goes after the taxpayer, not HRBlock.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
For every soldier carrying weapons on the fromt line, there are like 9 or 10 in support. There are many jobs which can be outsourced to the 'kelly girls' of the military support world.
Once the conflict is resolved, the career of the temp is up to whoever the subcontractor is, not the DoD or the VA.
But just like somebody who outsources their taxes the IRS goes after the taxpayer, not HRBlock.
Explain to me how this has anything to do with the fact that private contract prison gaurds that beat and torture prisoners are still on the job?
-
Is there some secret ploy to blame all of this on Great Britain?
First we learn that one of the perpetrators was a Ms England...now from your post we discover the CEO of CACI is called Dr London!
Shome mistake shurely?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
just a little curious. what could you possibly find funny on this subject?
I love watching the enlightened left lose it.
Just curious, why do you feel the need to question my motivation? Laughing isnt a violation of anything is it? Should I resign? Maybe set up some sort of international war crimes tribunal to determine whether or not my laughing smilie was appropriate? Best idea yet... lets set up a domestic commission to determine what went wrong with my laugh and how we can avoid it in the future. All non-partisan, of course.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I love watching the enlightened left lose it.
Just curious, why do you feel the need to question my motivation? Laughing isnt a violation of anything is it? Should I resign? Maybe set up some sort of international war crimes tribunal to determine whether or not my laughing smilie was appropriate? Best idea yet... lets set up a domestic commission to determine what went wrong with my laugh and how we can avoid it in the future. All non-partisan, of course.
And who would you label as "enlightened left", because i would not label myself as enlightened.
-
if somebody has a positive reason why we should use them I wish they'd post it, 'casue I'm having no luck thinking of one.
Hmm, could it have anything to do with the fact we only have 10 standing divisions? What percentage of these divisions and support unit are deployed all round the world at any given time? Are all 10 maintained at full combat strength at all times, or are a percentage of each regiment rounded out by reservists? How many reservists can be pulled out of the economy with out causing problems for not only their families, but the country over a given amount of time.
If I remember right, after the fall of the eastern bloc, we were told we didn’t need a large standing military anymore, simply because the US would only have to fight in short duration limited wars. Guess that wasn’t the case. Now we have a manpower shortage, in my option and we have to hire contractors to fill in our needs.
The standing Army during the first Gulf War was made up of a larger number of full strength divisions; independent regiments and support units that it is now. All without a draft.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
And who would you label as "enlightened left", because i would not label myself as enlightened.
Good point, neither would I. Ill edit my post.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Explain to me how this has anything to do with the fact that private contract prison gaurds that beat and torture prisoners are still on the job?
It doesn't. It is an answer to Cap'n Apathy, who lamented, " why do we have private companies involved here? we shouldn't be sub-contracting our war."
and causing people to make naked pyramids is not beating and torture, it is humiliation. There is a difference, although obviously both are wrong.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
If I remember right, after the fall of the eastern bloc, we were told we didn’t need a large standing military anymore, simply because the US would only have to fight in short duration limited wars. Guess that wasn’t the case.
thats still under some debate. the majority still seems to believe that we didn't need to fight this one. (not that our present administration was ever much into giving a damn what the majority of americans wanted anyway. )
-
For years and years and years the Government.... under both parties... maintained that we had the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously.
Is there anyone at all that still believes this fiction? They're still touting it about, AFAIK.
You have non-military subcontractors for this stuff because we, as a nation are unwilling to fund a standing army of sufficient size to do this sort of thing (fight a war and occupy the losing nation for a lengthy period) AND because we're willing to believe obvious BS spouted from the leadership of both parties.
I"ve been reading Ambrose's book on Eisenhower lately. Just amazing how huge an operation it was to win against Germany and then occupy/govern in the post-war period. It took ALL the Allied nations to get it done and the Germans basically did not resist after the cessation of hostilities.
Not the situation at all now, is it? Yet we think it can be done easily, quickly and with ~ 150,000 troops.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
-
Good point, Toad. I think that the Beltway/Pentagon gang need to get out more.
I was quite disturbed the other day to read that President Bush reads no newspapers and watches no TV news, by choice. Everything he knows is fed through his staff so it is not 'filtered'.
I've always been a fairly realistic, middle-of-the-road kind of guy, but I find this to be unnatural and disturbing. I would prefer for the president of the U.S. to be aware of what some intelligent people are thinking, saying and writing from a variety of viewpoints.
-
thats still under some debate
I'd say the debate is over.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Using contractors to do things such as vehicle maintenance, prison guarding, asphalt repair, etc, frees up soldiers to drive humvees and carry weapons.
For half the money we can have twice the soldiers.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
For half the money we can have twice the soldiers.
You ignore the political aspect of increasing the size of the military and the political process of creating a Defense budget, I think.
In short, it's far easier and politically "safer" for any Congressman to authorize a $100 billion to hire "contractors" than it is to vote to add an equal amount of new soldiers to the Army for half that price.
-
Spot on Toad.
Not to mention the shirking of responsibility when the contractors f**k up.
Ravs
-
That too.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Yes, but when your using them to fight wars, gaurd and interrogating prisoners of war, you risk violating international laws and human rights. Nothing wrong using independent contractors to do such things as you stated, but when they are beating unarmed civilians to death in prisons the governement might want to rethink its decisions. Which it is not going to do.
Did I miss something?
I dont remember hearing of anyone being beaten to death in Amwerican custody.
Hoods on there heads yes.
Paraded around neekid yes.
Humiliated yes.
But beated to death Nope.
-
Originally posted by Toad
For years and years and years the Government.... under both parties... maintained that we had the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously.
Is there anyone at all that still believes this fiction? They're still touting it about, AFAIK.
You have non-military subcontractors for this stuff because we, as a nation are unwilling to fund a standing army of sufficient size to do this sort of thing (fight a war and occupy the losing nation for a lengthy period) AND because we're willing to believe obvious BS spouted from the leadership of both parties.
I"ve been reading Ambrose's book on Eisenhower lately. Just amazing how huge an operation it was to win against Germany and then occupy/govern in the post-war period. It took ALL the Allied nations to get it done and the Germans basically did not resist after the cessation of hostilities.
Not the situation at all now, is it? Yet we think it can be done easily, quickly and with ~ 150,000 troops.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Toad you make alot of sense there!
-
That's some pretty clear thinking Toad.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
The standing Army during the first Gulf War was made up of a larger number of full strength divisions; independent regiments and support units that it is now. All without a draft.
The difference this time out is the lack of any significant coalition forces. Wanna go it alone? Well... there ya have it. Sorta like a paid, private coalition.
-
LOL!
BZZZZZZZZZZT!
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991
THAT'S the difference.
Oh, yeah along with the ~ 400,000 guys that are no longer in uniform... these 12,000 guys are not available either... that's a difference too.
9,000 Army troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia
-
txmx: "Did I miss something? I dont [sic] remember hearing of anyone being beaten to death in Amwerican [sic] custody."
10 of the deaths while in custody are being investigated now.
-
The difference this time out is the lack of any significant coalition forces. Wanna go it alone? Well... there ya have it. Sorta like a paid, private coalition.
You may like to look up the order of battle of Gulf war 1 and compare the total number of US forces evolved in both. The coalition ground forces in Gulf War 1 did not make up a large part of that order of battle that were counted on to do the fighting other that the English. The English were in both by the way. Please list all the significant ground forces, units and troop strength missing from Gulf War1. That US commanders would have counted on if the battle had gone bad or if US, English Units need to be taken out of the line for R&R.
-
How many reservists were in Gulf War I?
-
A quick google (may be in error?) showed 106,000 reserves and 1,600 National Guard deployed in the first Gulf War.
Compared to what... 700,000 in this war?
The coalition made up 25% percent of the total force in the first Gulf war... Compared to what in this one?
Lookit - I'm getting mightily confused myself, and I don't even know what my point is.... But it strikes me as strange hearing that the Government aint willing to pay for more troops, yet they keep asking for billions upon billions to pay for private contractors who are prolly more expensive than the regular forces.
I'm pretty sure a healthy coalition could have taken over the roles the contractors now have, and I'm pretty sure the current admin would welcome as many of them as possible.
-
Originally posted by Toad
In short, it's far easier and politically "safer" for any Congressman to authorize a $100 billion to hire "contractors" than it is to vote to add an equal amount of new soldiers to the Army for half that price.
Why? Seems that politicians are getting roasted for not supporting more military spending, no?
-
showed 106,000 reserves and 1,600 National Guard deployed in the first Gulf War.
How many where active? I remember around 500,000 total. Compared to 125,000 now in Iraq. What was the total land mass and population of Kuwait? What if the total land mass and population of Iraq? Bit of difference wouldn’t you say?
The coalition made up 25% percent of the total force in the first Gulf war... Compared to what in this one?
What was their combat effeteness? Where they here for looks or for go? In other works.....Were they worth a crap.
But it strikes me as strange hearing that the Government aint willing to pay for more troops, yet they keep asking for billions upon billions to pay for private contractors who are prolly more expensive than the regular forces.
You'd have to ask the US pres at the time, why the government didn't want to pay for the troops they had under arms and why the force reduction. Ohhh btw....You don't rebuild stood down divisions and need support units over night. Contractors are a stop gap measure in my opinion. Is the Army now being called on to increase and rebuild stood down divisions? Don't know.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/international/middleeast/04CONT.html
**** this government. **** its corporate entanglements. **** its stupid wars. **** its apathy and even encouragement of human rights abuses and murders. **** its opaqueness. **** every single cog in its machine responsible for this ****.
I hate my government. I want it to fall, burn, and be replaced. **** everyone who defends this ****. You're idiots.
Go to hell you bastard pinko. - PFC Rose
-
Is contractor the an easier to swallow name for mercenary, or is it just more PC?
-
All I'm saying is that if there were the same coalition as there was in Gulf War I, then that'd EASILY replace the contractors who are now raping and pillaging the land and are the subject currently under discussion.
This constitutes a difference, no?
S'all I'm saying. Not sure why the "BZZZT" and "LOLs"... but whatever.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
txmx: "Did I miss something? I dont [sic] remember hearing of anyone being beaten to death in Amwerican [sic] custody."
10 of the deaths while in custody are being investigated now.
Compared to how many civilian contractors killed dragged behing cars and hung up like rag dolls?
They could have died from injuries recieved in combate as far as we know.
-
Why? Seems that politicians are getting roasted for not supporting more military spending, no?
Again...you don't rebuild Army units over night. I'd say It takes up to a year or more. They all have to be trained and re-equiped. You also have to pay for their whole enlistment and other benefits. Just like you may have seen at your job, contractors are here today gone tomorrow.
-
All I'm saying is that if there were the same coalition as there was in Gulf War I, then that'd EASILY replace the contractors who are now raping and pillaging the land and are the subject currently under discussion.
Who were all these coalition forces and where they worth a crap?
raping and pillaging the land That's a bit much wouldn’t you say?
I haven’t heard any thing about hordes of contractors hotroding around Iraq raping and pillaging.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Who were all these coalition forces and where they worth a crap?
raping and pillaging the land That's a bit much wouldn’t you say?
I haven’t heard any thing about hordes of contractors hotroding around Iraq raping and pillaging.
Who were they and were they worth a crap? Ask someone who really knows.
re Raping and pillaging... A bit of a joke. Okay sorry, torturing and killing.
I could be wrong, but I did hear tons about "coalition forces" in GW1. In this go-around, it's replaced with the word "contractors" which I never heard during the 1st one. So that's a difference to me. Make of it what you will.
-
Yup your right, There hordes of contractors hotroding around Iraq torturing and killing. I'm sure you will sleep better tonight.
-
I'll sleep fine. When it comes to the war in Iraq, not a damn thing suprises me.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Again...you don't rebuild Army units over night. I'd say It takes up to a year or more. They all have to be trained and re-equiped.
So, the contractors don't have to do the same?
-
So, the contractors don't have to do the same?
Have no idea what they have to do. You can't field what you dont' have and you can't grow an larger Army over night.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Have no idea what they have to do. You can't field what you dont' have and you can't grow an larger Army over night.
The same for the contractor.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
You can't field what you dont' have and you can't grow an larger Army over night.
But if the cause is worthy, you can get a little help.
-
Believe as you will.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Believe as you will.
Well, all I am pointing out is you are saying the great country of America can't get an army trained and armed fast enough. But the contractor can wave a magic wand and have a fully armed and trained fighting force in a day.
-
If that's what I think it was, it's kind of low, just delete it. Nash is wrong but play nice.
-
"This just doenst make sence."
Ok, sixpence gets spelled as sixpense, but sense gets spelled sence. Damn you, damn you all!!
-
Have no idea what they have to do. You can't field what you dont' have and you can't grow an larger Army over night.
no but possibly we could have gotten well trained forces from other countryies had we not taken on a war that virtualy nobody in this world wanted short of our pressident and his fanboi's.
had he not started this mess our curent levels would have had been fine to handle the situation in Afganistan (possibly not even requiring reserves or guard).
and it wasn't like these troops where needed overnight, he spent quite a while selling this war.
from the posts here and what I've read elsewahere the only ligitimate reason I see for the contractors(mercs) is either distanceing from the actions the take, or maybe the contractors are just more friends who need to make some money off this war (ok, to be fair the last part was pure speculation. I have no proof of links between the owners of these companies and Bush/cheney/haliburton. anybody know who does own these 'contractor' companies?)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
If that's what I think it was, it's kind of low, just delete it. Nash is wrong but play nice.
I deleted it because I trust you but I really have no idea what you are talking about. Keep in mind I only peek in here 1/4-5 months now. Tell me what the deal is if you think it's appropriate to mention it.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie-away
I deleted it because I trust you
He's a Raider fan, I wouldn't trust him.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
He's a Raider fan, I wouldn't trust him.
The blackmail levera-er I mean mutual interests I share with FunkedUp lead me to have a great deal of trust in him.
By the way FunkedUp - if you are up for taking a contract as a 'Pornographic Movie Producer/Interrogator' in Iraq, let me know and I'll hook you up. Just don't tell Nash he'll be on the phone to Woodward and Bernstein in a heartbeat. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Nash had some medical problems a while back that were made public here. I was worried that your quip might be linked with that, and that's why I posted. Glad you deleted it, and I think Nash is in good health these days, so good times.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Nash had some medical problems a while back that were made public here. I was worried that your quip might be linked with that, and that's why I posted. Glad you deleted it, and I think Nash is in good health these days, so good times.
I had no idea. Nash - if you read the reply FunkedUp was talking about I had no idea. I was being a biatch not being a *****.
Mike/wulfie
-
I was a heroin junkie.
lol. :D
No I didn't read what you said as a dig at me at all, and I also think it's cool that funked defended me.
Uhm... yeah.
-
studmuffin :D
-
lol@!
Funkypants when I buy ya the pair of Shark tickets next season, one of those tickets is gonna be mine. And you KNOW I love the dirty talk.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I was a heroin junkie.
Big deal. What's really important is do you know a lot about Sean Connery? In his prime would you consider him to be a muscular Cary Grant? :)
Mike/wulfie
p.s. How accurate do you feel that movie was?
-
no but possibly we could have gotten well trained forces from other countryies had we not taken on a war that virtualy nobody in this world wanted short of our pressident and his fanboi's.
And maybe frogs will sprout wings and learn to fly. Look Capt, if all you wanted to do was grind your Bush is a moron axe that’s fine. You could have save me a lot of trouble by just saving so in the first place. You wanted to know why contractors where in Iraq. Toad and I tried to give you a plausible reason for them being there. If you feel the US military should have to look for troops from other counties to fulfill their mission, that also fine with me. I for one don’t agree with it. Read wulfie-away post for more info that I would every have.
had he not started this mess our curent levels would have had been fine to handle the situation in Afganistan (possibly not even requiring reserves or guard).
And if none flew planes into the world trade center we wouldn’t be in Afghanistan, If Clinton had kiss Bin Laden butt and killed all the Jews for him during the ninety’s every thing would be just peachy. What’s the point? It’s get us nowhere.
and it wasn't like these troops where needed overnight, he spent quite a while selling this war.
And if you think the Military can train and re-quipped the amount of troops needed in that period of time, I believe it was less that a year. You need to do more research. We had, I believe 500,000 in 91. There are around 150,000 there now. They have done a hell of allot more that should have ever been expected from them. But, Like I said before. We didn't need a large standing Army anymore. That is, until we need them
-
Originally posted by wulfie-away
Big deal. What's really important is do you know a lot about Sean Connery? In his prime would you consider him to be a muscular Cary Grant? :) p.s. How accurate do you feel that movie was?
I gotta plead ignorance. I was a heroin junkie, but I was a pretty misinformed one. I #@$%ing styled at it, but I don't know much about the culture other than cobain and parsons. Didn't even know about rehab and stuff until the folks on this board started screaching at me about it. I have no idea what movie yer talking about. :)
-
I was a heroin junkie
Sorry to hear that Nash. I have a two quart 24/7 booze hound for a brother-in-law that is killing my family. So I do know to a degree, what you are goin through. But having said that, your still a nit-wit ;) Good luck....
-
I have wee bit of experience and would be called a traitor for saying this....
But he can only kill y'all if you let him. Chances are yer letting him kill himself while yer at it.
Don't put up with any of it. Not an inch.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I gotta plead ignorance. I was a heroin junkie, but I was a pretty misinformed one. I #@$%ing styled at it, but I don't know much about the culture other than cobain and parsons. Didn't even know about rehab and stuff until the folks on this board started screaching at me about it. I have no idea what movie yer talking about. :)
Trainspotting. I've never been addicted to anything (that I know of - knock, knock) but I'll make an extremely uneducated guess and say that the case of beer is on me if you don't like that movie.
Mike/wulfie
-
Ah yeah that one pretty much nailed it.
Saw it before; cool movie and all.
Saw it during.... and holy.
Saw it after, and had some good laughs.
You get to keep your case of beer, for now. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ah yeah that one pretty much nailed it.
Saw it before; cool movie and all.
Saw it during.... and holy.
Saw it after, and had some good laughs.
You get to keep your case of beer, for now. :)
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Never again, Swanney. I'm off the scag.
Swanney: Are you serious?
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Yeah, no more. I'm finished with that ****e.
Swanney: Well, it's up to you, man.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Gonna get it right this time. Gonna get it sorted out. Gonna get off it for good.
Swanney: I've heard that one before.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: The Sick Boy method?
(Sick Boy is passed out on the carpet behind them, having just taken a hit of heroin) :)
Swanney: Well, it nearly worked for him, hey.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Well, he's always been lacking in moral fiber.
Swanney: He knows a lot about Sean Connery.
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: That's hardly a substitute.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117951/
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by txmx
Compared to how many civilian contractors killed dragged behing cars and hung up like rag dolls?
They could have died from injuries recieved in combate as far as we know.
2 have already been ruled homocides. Why don't you stick your head further into the sand.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040507/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prisoner_abuse&cid=540&ncid=716
Bottom of the article.
-
Ah shucks.
Then poor peace loving people.
Maybe we should pack up our 100 billion dollars worth of infrastruture and come on home.
Hey thats sounds good don't it ? gets my vote .
-
Originally posted by txmx
Ah shucks.
Then poor peace loving people.
Maybe we should pack up our 100 billion dollars worth of infrastruture and come on home.
Hey thats sounds good don't it ? gets my vote .
For someone with jesus saves in their sig you really have little to no respect for human life.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lookit - I'm getting mightily confused myself, and I don't even know what my point is.... But it strikes me as strange hearing that the Government aint willing to pay for more troops, yet they keep asking for billions upon billions to pay for private contractors who are prolly more expensive than the regular forces.
Nash
It's quite simple. A contractor is working under a contract. The NUMEROUS contractors I work with daily are paid handsomely, but... the contracts average only a year with no garuntees of renewal, and they don't recieve any training because they don't need it. Generally, they are already experts in thier field.
Consider the amount it costs just to train a new military member and add that to the fact that the average GI is in for a stretch of 4yrs minimum and things should quickly begin to make sense.
T.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Nash
It's quite simple. A contractor is working under a contract. The NUMEROUS contractors I work with daily are paid handsomely, but... the contracts average only a year with no garuntees of renewal, and they don't recieve any training because they don't need it. Generally, they are already experts in thier field.
Consider the amount it costs just to train a new military member and add that to the fact that the average GI is in for a stretch of 4yrs minimum and things should quickly begin to make sense.
T.
The fact is they are not getting as many recruits as they used to. The signing bonus keeps going up and up, and all you hear about is a shortage of troops. Trust me, the recruiters are working night and day trying to get people.
-
Originally posted by txmx
Maybe we should pack up our 100 billion dollars worth of infrastruture and come on home.
Hey thats sounds good don't it ? gets my vote .
Mine too, we can use that infrastructure, like a new electrical grid, and get rid of all those power lines and run them underground.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
The fact is they are not getting as many recruits as they used to. The signing bonus keeps going up and up, and all you hear about is a shortage of troops. Trust me, the recruiters are working night and day trying to get people.
Actually, sign-up and reenlistment bonuses are going away for the most part. The USAF is cutting 18,000 troops by 2005. The Army is asking for 30,000 more... opportunistic if you ask me. Retention and enlistment rates have increased dramaticly and are fairly stable. There's never been a lack of willing recruits... we spent the 90's cutting the military to bare bones on purpose.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Actually, sign-up and reenlistment bonuses are going away for the most part. The USAF is cutting 18,000 troops by 2005. The Army is asking for 30,000 more... opportunistic if you ask me. Retention and reenlistment rates have increased dramaticly and are fairly stable.
Well thats good.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
The fact is they are not getting as many recruits as they used to. The signing bonus keeps going up and up, and all you hear about is a shortage of troops. Trust me, the recruiters are working night and day trying to get people.
Ok then signe up there young feller.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
... and get rid of all those power lines and run them underground.
Goofy but yup. Don't underestimate the psychological impact (or lack) of a city where all the power lines are invisible. Pretty huge.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Goofy but yup. Don't underestimate the psychological impact (or lack) of a city where all the power lines are invisible. Pretty huge.
True and the cable TV is a biggie as well.