nerdgirl

Thanks for the interest. As far as I know the presentation won’t be taped. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If it's a contest, then then "you" wins. He said "you" 10 times and if you count "your" and "yourself" it's 17 total. That's almost 3:1 for "you" over "I" in the battle of the pronouns A lil' linguistical analysis - neat. Thanks for going back to the primary document. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. And if I had any thought that he would use the photo in any way that was disrespectful, I would have recommended he choose another image. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I did. Thanks for the heads up'. It's fixed now. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It is a sad day when we must worry about offending someone with an award-winning classic photo. That, and this photo, were the most memorable photos of the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nguyen.jpg While something of thread drift, your mentioning the Nguyen photo prompted me to think of Malcolm Browne's photo of Thích Quang Duc's self-immolation. A triptych of something ... not sure exactly what ... but something powerful. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the reply. The use of the photo, within the context of the talk [COIN, strategic communications, & technology] is appropriate, pretty close to quintessential. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The point is to show those who are offended something to be truly offended on, and leave the classic award-winning photo alone. Like lightning rod. That's exactly the reason Encyclopedia Dramatica has this page. Thanks for the additional clarifying lines. I was unsure of the connection as well. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I've been to a couple - one was a zydeco-style band in a big backyard and the other was a bluesy singer and bassist (iirc) in the living room of a Victorian-style house. I liked the informal setting. For me, just a lot of fun. Don't remember the charge. For the 2nd, the guy I was seeing at the time paid. I don't think either was more than $10-15/person. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, imo, 6 year olds can start to learn civics. When I was in 1st grade, i.e., 6 years old, we had a mock presidential election. Pres Reagan won both irl and in my grade school. We were taught the concepts of an election and the basics for the US Presidential election. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And it has nothing to do directly with Pres Obama or Pres Bush … altho’ I have great faith in the ability of humans to find patterns and parallels where none may exist. One of my interns queried me earlier today if I thought that Nick Ut’s Pulitzer prize winning photo of the young Vietnamese girl, Phan Thi Kim Phúc, who had been burned by napalm would be offensive? He’s putting together a talk on counterinsurgency, strategic communications, and role of technology. The audience will be adults, if that is important … altho’ I don’t imagine many kids being overly interested in that topic. One never knows, tho? I paused for a moment. Less w/r/t/ the question of appropriateness of the use of the photo, within the context of the talk it is completely. And more that it would be a question. My guidance to him was to use it. And if someone objected to feel free to let them know that I had approved it and to speak to me if it was an issue. So what do you think? Would you be offended? If yes, why? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Follow-up to my earlier post: The guy who signed the travel authorization for my invitational travel orders (ITO) considered reducing the risk of me getting malaria to be in the DoD’s interest. Well … that’s my translation of something that went more like “I’m not getting blamed for getting you sick because some &%@#*ng, short-sighted, idiotic pinhead who’s never been outside the cube farm doesn’t understand the basics of infectious disease prevention and operational medicine ….” His judgement call. I could feel the luv tho’. Albeit, this is the same O-6 who stills calls me the red-headed hottie of Corridor 3, so his perspective may be a little biased. I had already purchased the anti-malaria pills on my own. Got offered a couple extra vaccines, tho'. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

With one sentence you just summed up my personal experience with K-12 public education. I was frustrated and bored with school due to grasping the knowledge very quickly while my teachers spent the majority of the class catering to the one freaking student who just could not get it. I got kicked out of class a few times for standing up and calling bullshit. Some of my experiences were similar and some were different. The one time I was kicked out of class was for “insubordination” – I defended what you might have called the “one freaking student who just could not get it.” It was a week or so before the end of my junior year. Most of the semester the permanent teacher had been out of class for health reasons. We had liked the long-term substitute sub and had ‘bonded’ to some extent as a class. Now as an adult, I can recognize that the permanent teacher was frustrated because the long-term sub hadn’t taught us as much as she was supposed to have … but that wasn’t *our* fault. There was one girl in the class who just struggled with Spanish ... and hadn’t been yet socialized to just stay quiet. She wasn’t ‘dumb’, she just thought differently. The teacher took out some of her frustration, imo, on that one girl one too many times. I thought the teacher was acting like a bully. I stood up for the other student … in that smart-ass way that too-smart-for-lack-of-maturity and too idealistic 16-year old girls can do. (Read: not exactly diplomatically.) I ended up having an “in-school” suspension for the last week of class and took the final exam in the “in-school” suspension room. Got an “A.” Of course. The “in-school” suspension supervisor was the weightlifting and JV baseball coach, who knew me because I was on the varsity softball team. He seemed confused as to why I was there for one hour a day. He’d tell the other kids to be quiet, stop ‘this’, stop ‘that,’ whereas I’d just come in, I’d read [something] quietly, and leave. The stoners, the burn-outs, and me. I kept the write-up from the Spanish teacher that I was given after meeting with the vice principal. When I get back to ATL might scan it. “INSOBORDINATION” written in big letters across the top and underlined multiple times. The other fave line: “Is this National Honor Society behavior?” (Iirc, there were a whole bunch of question marks at the end.) The induction had been a week or so before the incident. While in hindsight I wish my execution was more sophisticated and diplomatic … I was good even back then, but still just a 16-yo girl … I had pride in the choices – recognized they were my choices for which I was responsible with potential consequences – I made then and still do. Stood up against what I saw as bully-like bahavior who was unjustly targeting someone. The “one freaking student who just could not get it” wasn't even my close friend; she just didn't deserve to be treated that way, im-16-yo's idealistic-o. The other time I got in trouble in high school was when some kid threw something at the bus driver. I grew up in the rural Midwest – long bus rides were normal. I had to have been a sophomore. The bus went back to the high school, and we just sat there. And sat there. And sat there. The twit who did it wasn’t fessing up. I think I had a Girl Scout meeting or something that night … ya know, something real bad-ass -[at myself] … and I just didn’t want to sit there (selfish motive) while we were all being punished for one twit’s actions (idealistic motive). So finally I said “I did it.” And we got to go home. The next day, I got to meet with the principal. He didn’t think that I had done it. I told him why I said I did. He asked if I knew who did it. I didn’t: I was in the back of the bus; someone toward the front threw something (prolly poorly aimed at another student.) Most of my public school teachers were fantastic tho! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Verbatim from the recruitment advertisement linked & copied above: “supporting a USG client.” Then followed the position requirements for skill for skills and experience related to military combat. Xe is recruiting for positions to support the USG with requirements for skills related to fighting to be deployed into combat areas (For other positions, they have other requirements.) Are we discussing Blackwater or the Taliban? We were writing about the lack of “chain of command” being a requirement (that you asserted) not being a necessary in order to be considered as having been recruited to fight. As I wrote in the piece you quoted: “(It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted).” Me neither. Is that sentence: "Regardless, I don't know of any accusations of the Taliban or AQ hiring mercenaries," intended as sarcasm? Because it looks like it might be a red herring, i.e., (a logical fallacy that is a deliberate attempt to divert attention or to change a subject or divert an argument?). I explained the relevance of lack of "chain of command" w/r/t something you asserted as criteria for fighting (post #78: [mnealtx]: "they are NOT in the military chain of command. Kind of hard to be 'recruited to fight' when there's nobody in the chain of command that can give you that order") in the portion of my response quoted above (twice - in the 'replied to' portion of your reply and my most comments). You won’t. No one ever claimed it did. It appears that you are making an argument against something that was never argued. "Skills and experiences related to military combat" is the basis on which they were “specially recruited,” i.e., fulfilling part of the criteria of 47(a). I've explained repeatedly how the other criteria were fulfilled. It's the citizen technicality. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Re-reading, yes, those who advocate removal would seem to fall under your 2nd category. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Recruitment does equal the Article 47 criteria. It certainly does appear that recruiting criteria have included (for some put not all) "skills and experience related to military combat" ... unless unless one argues that service as part of the Navy SEALS, Army SF, 75th Ranger Regiment, Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Air Force PJ/CCT in a verifiable hostile environment does not qualify as "skills and experience related to military combat," which I highly doubt that you are doing. No, it means they weren't under the command of the military, therefore they were NOT "recruited to fight in an armed conflict". So by your argument none of the Taliban fighters detained were recruited to fight in an armed conflict, since they were not under military command? (It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted.) That’s not a requirement of the criteria. One might arguye that it should be but it isn’t. In cases, employees of Blackwater were recruited to fill positions based on skills and experience related to military combat, such as the State Dept BDS, that had traditionally/previously been filled by uniformed military servicemen with expectation of engaging in direct hostilities, and they did, "in fact, engage in direct hostilities." Criteria (a) and (b) satisfied. It's the citizenship technicality. No - I gave you factual information from my discussions with people that have actually DONE the job that BW was hired to do, and you dismissed them as 'false criteria', 'red herrings' and 'strawman arguments'. How do you know I wasn’t either? (Assumptions?) Which job were they doing? Blackwater has been hired to do a lot of different jobs. Some they have executed effectively and efficiently and that are clearly not ‘mercenary’ in nature or behavior … others, less so. More importantly, my argument has been based on the Article 47 criteria, which until post #67 you weren’t using, e.g., “line of battle,” “offensive.” Whether or not some employees of Blackwater in some capacity have acted as mercenaries is not resolved either here or in the real world. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There has been a debate, in some communities, regarding removal of radical Islamist videos from youtube, which does go to the issue of free speech versus censorship that I personally – owned very much as mine- find more interesting. (Yes, iTunes is not youtube and radical Islamist videos aren’t the same … but it’s more interesting to me. ) Fox News story: “YouTube Yanks Radical Islamist Videos After Lieberman's Complaint .” These aren’t beheading, etc videos, which were already removed. On one side are the folks who argue that the videos should be removed because youtube becomes a means for propaganda and recruiting by radical Islamists/global salafists. There is at least one private citizens group, of which I am aware, that actively monitors for videos they find offensive and alerts youtube. When youtube removes the videos, many reappear within hours or days with different titles. On the other side, are those who want the videos to remain up for various reasons, including but not limited to free speech. One reason is to see who makes comments and use it for gathering information on terrorist groups and supporters. I recognize that ICT enables capabilities by radical Islamists/global Salafists of which previous terrorists and terrorist-sympathizing groups could not have dreamed. Particularly as it has enabled them to define, create, and propagate their own image among potential tacit supporters globally. Perhaps that's not the direction you imagined (or maybe it is ) that the thread might go ... but it is somewhere. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Here’s an example of a Xe (nee Blackwater) recruiting advertisement: Xe recruiting for Select Program Note: Marine Scout Snipers have been added as qualified applicants. They need to get spun up on advanced HG/Carbine shooting skills prior to attending the training, if selected. From Black Ice: Select Programs Group, a division of Xe Services, is currently seeking candidates for mobile security positions supporting a USG client. The requirements for these positions are: Minimum of 6 years experience with one of the following Military Units: Navy SEALS Army SF 75th Ranger Regiment Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper Air Force PJ/CCT *Additional requirements include verifiable Hostile Environment experience and prior PSD experience. Candidates for this program must be prepared to submit electronic copies of their most current DD 214 and Resume. All candidates for Select Programs Group must be eligible for a USG Secret clearance. Candidates who pass the initial screening will be subject to a rigorous Training/Selection/Vetting process. You must be physically fit and medically cleared for OCONUS deployments prior to attending training with Select Programs Group. The Firearms Qualifications that each candidate must successfully pass are advanced in nature. You must be prepared to demonstrate advanced shooting skills on Day 1 of the training course with Select Programs Group. The training is fast paced and is designed to prepare each student to successfully pass the client’s requirements for entry into this program. Select Programs Group has an excellent training program with world class instructors, a private training facility and an excellent success rate for students. Select Programs Group offers flexible deployment schedules that range in length from 60-75 days deployed. We offer a competitive, progressive pay scale with merit based pay increases for time deployed with the client, advanced client sponsored training and seniority with Select Programs Group. We seek quiet professionals who are interested in a challenging and rewarding career opportunity supporting a critical overseas mission. Select Programs Group has an immediate need for individuals ready to deploy. We are expanding our team and experiencing exciting growth opportunities in many of our overseas work locations. With Select Programs Group you will enjoy the benefits of working with a company that has a long and stable history with our clients and a progressive approach to the future. If you are interested in this opportunity, please respond to the email address listed below with a short BIO and an electronic copy of your DD 214 and Resume. radar@selectpg.com Or contact: Jamie at 252-435-0035 Here’s another one direct from the Xe website: Special Programs Mobile Security Team Members 1. Minimum of 6 years of active duty U.S. military experience in a Special Operations unit (SEAL, Special Forces, Ranger etc.)(National Guard/Reserve time does not count unless activated) 2. Possibility of 4 years of active duty U.S. military experience in a Special Operations unit with 2 years of private security experience. 3. Tactical experience overseas (High Threat Environment) 4. US citizen 5. Honorable Discharge 6. Valid US drivers license 7. Current US Passport 8. High school diploma 9. Currently hold or are able to get a Secret clearance. No negative history to include criminal, financial etc. 10. Flexible deployment and rotation schedule To apply, please send your resume to 18607@blackwaterusa2.hrmdirect.com More examples are available. Otoh, there are other positions available at Xe, such as “financial analyst” and “kitchen attendant” that don’t have those same kind of recruiting requirements. The recruitment advertisements quoted above suggests otherwise, unless one argues that service as part of the Navy SEALS, Army SF, 75th Ranger Regiment, Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Air Force PJ/CCT in a verifiable hostile environment does not qualify as "skills and experience related to military combat," which I highly doubt that you are doing. The criteria do not say anything about being “under chain of command.” Maybe it should – it’s just not there. That’s not a requirement. Maybe the requirements should be reviewed. Regardless there is both ambiguity and it’s not resolved, which remains the valid challenge to your absolute certain assertion. Flipping it around, if one is not under chain of command of a military means that one is not fighting, then – by your own argument – all of the Taliban detainees and Afghan civilians who were classified as “enemy combatants” because they didn’t fulfill the criteria for another Geneva Convention Protocol weren’t fighting. They were not under a military chain of command. Now one might argue that Blackwater and other PMSC are para-military organizations … but that's not included in the Article 47 criteria either. This is sarcasm (post #46)? *** And perhaps, instead of accusing someone with 20 years of experience WITH government contracts of throwing out a red herring, you might want to consider that they just MIGHT know what the fuck they're talking about, check your assumptions at the goddamn door and actually THINK about what they're saying. I'm done. In post #57 you acknowledge you were replying in anger at me (not at the argument). You asserted that I did not check my assumptions and didn’t know what I was talking about (even tho’ I was working off of the Article 47 criteria, whereas you did not appear to be until post #67). How do you explain that “actually THINK about what they're saying” was not meant as an insult? Did you not mean to imply that I was not thinking about what I wrote? If you can explain how that was not an insult, this argument may have some validity. As you’ve acknowledged it was written in anger at me, it’s a hard case. Mike – I never mentioned *your* experience. I’ve challenged your arguments. I’ve been very explicit in challenging arguments. Are you arguing now that no one can challenge your arguments because of your experience? (That seems to be one of the arguments that you and others make to criticize those who support policy regarding climate change.) As long of what you I identified as red herrings and straw men were in fact that, then it’s valid critique of the argument. And it’s really not about you specifically (at least for me it isn’t. Really). I don’t know how to state that more plainly. It’s not sarcasm. It’s the issue not the person, whereas the quote from post #46 seems to pretty clearly be about the person – both your 20 years experience and the accusation of my not thinking. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Soon to be the new CIA policy. If they can sing it in Pashtu/Dari with dialect, it might not only get them a job (if they can pass the background investigation for security clearance), it might get them up to $35K bonus. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I was reminded of this thread by a popular science press account of some work coming out of a DARPA basic research program: Revolutionizing Prosthetics Excerpts from “Movable Prosthetics: The Biomechanical Interface” “For now, a big payoff of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)'s Revolutionizing Prosthetics 2009 project -- a multi-year push to develop new prosthetic limbs -- is a breathtaking set of advances in human-machine interfaces, control technology, and implantation techniques. “However, the most important advances of the program just might be the lessons learned and the infrastructure laid down in figuring out how to focus the skills of thousands of researchers -- working on everything from nerve chemistry to software engineering -- on one single goal: Build a working, lifelike arm that users can control to do everything from picking up a piece of paper to drinking a toast with a delicate crystal glass. “DARPA will soon have a set of 2009 prototypes fueled by years of research spanning chemistry, biology, computer science, cognition, engineering and physics. Dean Kamen, of Segway fame, has lumped some of this technology together into the optimistically named ‘Luke Arm,’ a reference to ‘Star Wars’ character Luke Skywalker's artificial limb, which Kamen's company eventually wants to bring to market [after those ‘years of research’ funded by DARPA, NSF, etc – nerdgirl]. “While most researchers say that a true production version of the ‘Luke Arm’ is many years away, the advances fueled by the project are promising not only to revolutionize prosthetics, but to enhance medicine and electronics in many new ways."“Central to many of the problems involved in prosthetics is the bioelectronic interface, where nerves and muscle must establish connections with silicon and metal."“However, despite wondrous advances, most researchers say that the current state of the art is as far from the idealized concept of the ‘Luke Arm’ as the Wright Brothers’ first flights at Kitty Hawk are from today's commercial aviation. ‘We've had a great deal of experience with reinnervation [making artificial muscle-nerve connections – nerdgirl] -- more than 30 procedures where people have been fitted with limbs and virtual systems,’ said Stuart Harshbarger, biomedicine team leader at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory .... ‘But we're just starting to get substantial field data about how these limbs work, so we can adjust and improve them with better feedback, ... And in the real world,’ he said, ‘every prosthetic and every patient is unique, so that data is really important if we're going to find solutions that are customizable for each person's situation.’“Of course, one way to deal with the interface between biological systems and electronics is to blur the distinction by making the electronic circuitry ‘more biological.’ That's the focus of a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory project that might eventually have an impact on prosthetics. ‘The problem we have to solve is that the biological interface is chemical, and the prosthetic is electro-mechanical and relies on fields and currents,’ University of California Merced Associate Professor of Biochemistry and LLNL Staff Scientist Aleksandr Noy [more on Noy’s work, his work is also cited in my book - nerdgirl] told TechNewsWorld. ‘We can do some translation between them now, but if the prosthetic could sense an actual chemical release -- the signal itself -- it would be much better and more precise,’ he said. “Noy's work involves sealing arrays of silicon nanowire transistors within fatty membrane molecules. Using the same fatty membranes that nature uses to encase cells, Noy's technique encases the silicon-based electronics, raising the possibility that eventually, such nanowires might be used to communicate with living tissue. Already, they are more compatible with the body's natural systems than the silicon nanowires themselves, which change their electrical properties if left unprotected and exposed to the body's natural acidic and basic material.” Silicon nanowires as a potential way to make new nerve connections. It might work - the underlying science is sound; there are big challenges, including but not limited to long-term biocompatibility/resisting biofilm formation. It might not work. Basic research is inherently risky. Noy’s a physical chemist by training working at the convergence of nanotech-biology-and information communication. Pretty cool. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the link!. I'll check it out. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Here’s my gripe for the day about current health care system: I’ve got health insurance through my employer (HMO, with co-pay & monthly contribution – fair & fine, imo). I’m going to Cambodia and will be in areas where malaria is endemic. In the interest of preventative health/medicine/being responsible/not-being-stupid, I made an appointment to get immunization updates and anti-malaria pills. Got the tetanus booster through my primary care physician, but I have to go to a “travel clinic” for anti-malaria pills. My insurance doesn’t cover me getting the malaria prevention pills (which requires another doctor’s consultation). But if I come down with malaria, my insurance will cover treatment (more expensive). I’m still going to go get the pills even tho’ the system is counter-incentive in multiple ways, i.e., to do the “right thing” costs me more in terms of my time and money: $75-200 consultation + malaria pills [Malarone] aren’t cheap: $5 - $8.50 per pill, generally take 2 days before leaving, while in endemic area, & 7 days afterward. Nonetheless staying healthy is much cheaper than getting sick. And btw: Atovaquone/Proguanil HCl (Malarone) is covered under the US, Canadian, and UK formularies. In speaking with a representative of my health insurance provider, which is widely perceived as being very good to excellent, he never would explain(or possibly couldn't, either he doesn't know or is not permitted) the rationale for that decision. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Now who's throwing out red herrings? What in there do you think is a red herring: a logical fallacy that is a deliberate attempt to divert attention or to change a subject or divert an argument? I reiterated the criteria that you’ve tried/are trying to assert are relevant, when they’re not. Words that you've used that aren't in the criteria. Are you arguing that they were not hired, "specially recruited," because of their skills and experience related to military combat? What are the requirements of the contract with respect to skills and experience? If in actions of having to “defend” they have to fight, then they’re fighting. There is not “offensive” versus “defensive” criteria. You might argue that there should be one. Depends to which case you are referring. Deliberate killing of civilians would get a uniformed service member investigated too. Excessive use of force could get a uniformed service member investigated too. By your notional example above, that suggests that criteria (a) was fulfilled. (And “offensive” still is not part of the criteria; (b) “in fact, engage in direct hostilities” is. It's those direct hostilities that are largely responsible for investigations and subsequent findings.) They were under contract to State (& other agencies) to perform duties that had traditionally been performed by US military. Activities that had once been core military responsibilities. That is comparing like with like. No - according to their contract, they are augmentees of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. They are “augmentees” to BDS because the military was unable/were not going to fill a role they had traditionally served. Not because BDS had traditionally been deployed into armed conflict. I.e., that further strengthens the argument that criterion (a) was fulfilled. (Some) employees of BW were recruited to serve in roles with expectation of fighting that had previously been filled by uniformed service members. Depends - are you going to falsely accuse me of strawman arguments and red herrings again? Putting aside for the moment the validity of whether they were/are red herrings and straw men – because if they are then it’s not a false premise. Regardless, they are part of the argument (“the ball”) not the person (“the player”). Again, assuming for the sake of discussion that they weren't red herring and strawmen, your argument now is that if you can’t control your emotions and actions (swearing and insulting), it’s my fault? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Mike you’ve asserted an absolute with complete certainty. I’ve challenged that assertion on the grounds that (1) it’s not as absolute as you assert, and (2) it certainly was not resolved with the certainty or clarity that you assert, either here or in the real world. You have a higher bar to prove (like proving guilt). All I had to show was some reasonable doubt and that there was some ambiguity. The criteria doesn’t say guard. The criteria doesn’t say defensive. They were specially recruited to perform activities that required a skill set unique to fighting in armed conflict. They are specially recruited based on skills related to military combat. And as has been noted by people other than me, as cited previously but far from limited to LTC Ralph Peters, USA (ret), the Iraqi populace frequently can’t tell the difference. The US service members get blamed and have to deal with the consequences of their poor actions/choices in a few but critical instances. That’s the ”So What? Who Cares?” for me. If PMSC behavior is in conflict with US military strategy and operations, then it’s important. And in a counterinsurgency, the population is the key. See Galula, Trinquier, FM 3-24, Chap 1, pg 1-24, or GEN McChrystal’s COMISAF COIN GUIDANCE released last week, i.e., don’t believe me because I state it. They were under contract to State (& other agencies) to perform duties that had traditionally been performed by US military. Activities that had once been core military responsibilities. That is comparing like with like. That further strengthens the argument that criterion (a) was fulfilled. BW was recruited to serve in roles with expectation of fighting that had previously been filled by uniformed service members. It appears to a reasonable person that until post #[67] you were not functioning under the real criteria of Article 47. (The text of the Article was linked in my first response to you, back to a post from October 2007 in which I posted them verbatim – it’s that primary data addiction ). Imagine if someone came here and asserted, “There is NO individual right to firearms,” and they didn’t know what the 2nd amendment really stated? But they were extremely confident in their assertion? No, I’m just pointing out calmly and with evidence that the assertion you made is not as clear as you would like to believe. Are you going to get mad & swear at me and insult me again because I have the temerity to challenge a belief that you strongly hold? You’ve acknowledged that the word holds a pejorative connotation for you but you don’t seem to want to talk about why or what to do about that … even tho I’ve repeatedly tried and even brought in a reference from the Army War College that might serve as a starting point. If one is opposed to any privatization (I’m not) then it’s a non sequitur – it doesn’t matter: all privitization is opposed. If one is a pacifist opposed to force projection (I’m not) - then it’s a non sequitur – it doesn’t matter: all armed conflict is opposed. If one favors unilateral privitization and is not a pacifist then what's there may be an argument (not mine) for privitizing all military functions: make them all mercenaries by definition. If privitization is the best way, where's the advocacy of option? If one stands to benefit markedly from PMSCs (I don’t have the skill set for which they recruit operational employees) the perception/connotation/PR does matter because it creates bad PR among a different domestic audience - the US population and the US Congress. If one is motivated (beyond ideals of truth and recognition that the real world isn't often 'black-n-white') by strategy and finding the most effective means to execute that strategy within the law and within the values of the US (btw: that’s a paraphrasing from Bush admin strategy docs), then the connotation doesn’t matter much at the surface level *but* it does to the extent that it impacts the population amongst the insurgents (this is where I fall). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Still does … 2. A mercenary is any person who: ( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; Maybe – leaning strongly to affirmed … they were specifically recruited to fulfill roles that were previously fulfilled by uniformed military in an armed conflict (the individuals in question are hired for skills related to combat not medical skills, not analytical skills, not something unrelated to fighting) that had reasonable expectations of engaging in … &, as I’ve quoted repeatedly: ( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; Proven, or affirmed. See the USMC Colonel’s comments on Blackwater’s actions, Mr. Prince’s testimony, and the other documented incidents cited. ( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; Proven. They’re privately employed for monetary gain and as has been widely noted paid substantially more than US military, for example:“Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.” (Analysis & quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001352.html; primary document, made available through House Committee: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20061207151614-43671.pdf.) ( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; I.e., the citizenry exception that I’ve referenced at least a half dozen times … or as I wrote originally “If I had to argue it, it’s the loophole of citizenship (“national of a Party”) that may get Xe (nee Blackwater), etc. off on a technicality. Ironic?” Now that the US has a signed SOFA with the Iraqi government, it may be affirmed. ( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and Affirmed ( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces. Affirmed So sub-articles A is a maybe leaning toward affirmed, and sub-articles B and C are affirmed. It’s the technicality of part D (before US-Iraq SOFA entered into force) that may be the exception. And that sounds a lot like what I’ve been writing all along. And the validity of the challenge to your original assertion still stands. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the clarification … I’m still not certain to what argument it’s adding ammunition … but suspect not worth pursuing. I did read the paper you referenced last evening -- thanks! -- and it was something that was talked about (because I brought it up) at dinner. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying