Kabul guards

[catocom]

No, I have no problem with creating new threads. I just thought since you found the article that I should not tread on your find.

Do you want me to open the thread?

I think, you, being somewhat left, it actually might bring better bipartisanship
to it.

 

[spike]

I think this being posted on holiday day weekend is a testament to the view
of spike toward the military.

What's Labor Day have to do with me preferring the military over contractors?

 

[catocom]

hell, I don't know.
I hadn't had my secomd cup of coffee yet at the time.

 

[spike]

spike, spike, spike. It's been well documented that homosexual behavior is not a mental illnes so it cannot be a "security issue". Nice cover-up wording though. I'll give you an 8.

Nowhere does the article refer to homosexual behavior as the security issue. It addresses the actual security issues. I give that straw man a 2.

To whom? I think they're freaks but it's their business. Homosexuality is not a threat, unles you fear you is one.

Again homosexuality not the issue at all.

Obama's government.

Who hired these guys?

 

[Gonz]

Nowhere does the article refer to homosexual behavior as the security issue. Again homosexuality not the issue at all.

naked men, employees of the security firm, whose genitals are only barely covered with a kind of black beer mat. The men are drinking, dancing naked around a fire, licking each others nipples and grabbing each others testicles. They perform sex acts, pour vodka down each others' naked backs and drink it from the buttocks.

Hardly standard issue hetero-behavior.

I give that straw man a 2.

Parrot.

Who hired these guys?

Obama. It says so right here

despite complaints about ArmorGroup's unreliability, the US government renewed the contract in July of this year.

 

[spike]

Hardly standard issue hetero-behavior.

Whether it's homo or hetero is not the security issue. Read the article.

Parrot.

Turkey

Obama. It says so right here

That says renewed. Who hired them in the first place?

 

[Gonz]

That says renewed. Who hired them in the first place?

Irrelevent. Upon contract renewal, the sitting administration has authority to continue or cancel said contract. Obama chose to continue it.

 

[spike]

Yeah, I asked who hired and supposedly vetted them originally. You're avoiding the question again.

 

[Gonz]

I don't know. How long have they been there?

 

[Cerise]

Who hired them in the first place?

Vowing to initiate a probe into the matter, Senator Barney Frank declared, "I intend to get to the bottom of this!"

 

[Frodo]

Yeah, I asked who hired and supposedly vetted them originally. You're avoiding the question again.

I have never seen anyone twist logic so hard to defend a bad decision by "their" savior. Truly amazing.

 

[spike]

Your savior made a bad decision.

It cites a July 2007 warning from the department to ArmorGroup that detailed more than a dozen performance deficiencies, including too few guards and armored vehicles. Another "cure notice" was sent less than a year later, raising other problems and criticizing the contractor for failing to fix the prior ones.

In July 2008, however, the department extended the contract for another year, according to the notice. More problems surfaced and more warning notices followed. Yet during a congressional hearing on the contract in June, State Department officials said the prior shortcomings had been remedied and security at the embassy is effective.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090902...tan_embassy;_ylt=AqurzSqxVzewUE0BA54Wog10fNdF

 

[catocom]

Chorus
One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch girl.
(Ooh. Give me one more try before you give up on love.)
One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch girl.
(Ooh. I don't care what they say, I don't care what you heard.)

 

[Professur]

Having skimmed the thread, here are some simple conclusions:

I agree, contractors should not be used as embassy guards. Post sworn fighting men to the positions. Embassies are treated as sovereign territory. Treat them as such.

Unprofessional behavior, regardless of what, is unforgivable during work hours at any diplomatic posting. Unforgivable. After hours, on embassy property ... by the house rules. Off property .... feed them to the wolves. Local rules apply.

Remember that many embassy employees are locals hired for menial labour as clerks and such. If you considered that nearly all of them are either spies, or working for spies, or even just feeding local reporters ... you've probably not too far wrong.

 

[Cerise]

I have never seen anyone twist logic so hard to defend a bad decision by "their" savior. Truly amazing.

Pretty ugly, isn't it?

 

[MrBishop]

Remember that many embassy employees are locals hired for menial labour as clerks and such. If you considered that nearly all of them are either spies, or working for spies, or even just feeding local reporters ... you've probably not too far wrong.

No local clerks or anything remotely related to paperwork or information. Yes, they hire locally..but it'll be drivers, groundskeepers, cabana-boys and 'limited quarters housekeeping/maid' - Embassies are mighty particular about who works where and what they can and cannot see.

 

[spike]

Pretty ugly, isn't it?

Except that I already proved it your savior made the glaring mistakes in the very next post.

Pretty ugly that you covered your eyes for that.

 

[spike]

Having skimmed the thread, here are some simple conclusions:

I agree, contractors should not be used as embassy guards. Post sworn fighting men to the positions. Embassies are treated as sovereign territory. Treat them as such.

Unprofessional behavior, regardless of what, is unforgivable during work hours at any diplomatic posting. Unforgivable. After hours, on embassy property ... by the house rules. Off property .... feed them to the wolves. Local rules apply.

Remember that many embassy employees are locals hired for menial labour as clerks and such. If you considered that nearly all of them are either spies, or working for spies, or even just feeding local reporters ... you've probably not too far wrong.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Pretty ugly, isn't it?

Look at any con. You guys are just as bad or worse.