USAID Has Their Panties In A Twist Over Private Security Companies In Afghanistan

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ (Righthaven LLC?) has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, I’ve decided to give ya’ll an unhappycamper summary of the article and a link to the OP. To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.

To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

Read all about Fair Use here. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: It is what it is: Afghanistan. USAID is complaining about (maybe) not be able to spend $4.2 billion dollars in Afghanistan.

No problem! Just send the money to Detroit or Chicago or NYC or LA or Boston or any majer city in the United States. They will be happy to use it for things like libraries, roads, firemen, policemen and teacher salaries, food stamps, education, etc. etc.




Karzai: Show which aid projects need security
By Katharine Houreld - Associated Press Writer
Posted : Sunday Oct 24, 2010 10:14:09 EDT

An official from the U.S. Agency for International Development said his organization had spent nearly $10 billion on development in Afghanistan by the end of 2009 and had budgeted $4.2 billion to spend this year.

[w8liftinglady]

1. you are right,UHC.When we get things straight in our own backyard...

then we can take on the world's responsibilities.

[Peace Patriot]

2. I'm interested in this but don't have time to read all those articles. Could you briefly summarize?

I had trouble getting the gist of it from your comments. What have "private security firms" to do with USAID not being able to spend $4.2 billion in Afghanistan this year? WHY are their "panties in a twist"? A guess: They "can't spend" their billions because "private security firms" (also funded by us?) are not providing sufficient security? Is that what your post means, in summary?

----

Also, on "Fair Use," do you mean that the Pentagon literally asked you to post only one paragraph? Or, you've read a "Fair Use" statement at their publications' sites that says that? Seriously, did the Pentagon contact you? This may sound like a silly question, but, what with Wikileaks and all, I need to ask it. Or is it just that, being sensitive to DU's rules, you checked their "Fair Use" statements and those say "only one paragraph"?

Is this what you mean, by your "Fair Use"/fascism comment?: Since when are we, who are PAYING FOR Pentagon publications, restricted as to QUOTING Pentagon publications?!

If that's what you mean, I totally agree.

[unhappycamper]

3. It ain't (quite) that easy, but let me try:

I had trouble getting the gist of it from your comments. What have "private security firms" to do with USAID not being able to spend $4.2 billion in Afghanistan this year?


WHY are their "panties in a twist"? A guess: They "can't spend" their billions because "private security firms" (also funded by us?) are not providing sufficient security? Is that what your post means, in summary?


The Karzai government canceled all private security contractors in Afghanistan. USAID complained about about not being able to spend another $4.2 billion dollars this year in Afghanistan.. Keep in mind you cannot do a lot with one lousy paragraph - there is no context.

----

Also, on "Fair Use," do you mean that the Pentagon literally asked you to post only one paragraph?

Yes. The Admins received an email from the Pentagon (?) and passed it on to me asking that I limit my posts of military crap on the Gannet Newpapers military rags to one paragraph. The rest of my lead in is just plain snark, but I do intend to put on own words on the stories. And that's how you ended up with "Panties In A Twist."


Or, you've read a "Fair Use" statement at their publications' sites that says that? Seriously, did the Pentagon contact you? This may sound like a silly question, but, what with Wikileaks and all, I need to ask it. Or is it just that, being sensitive to DU's rules, you checked their "Fair Use" statements and those say "only one paragraph"?

See answer above.


Is this what you mean, by your "Fair Use"/fascism comment?: Since when are we, who are PAYING FOR Pentagon publications, restricted as to QUOTING Pentagon publications?!


I thought it necessary to remind people of Fair Use; the fascism comment is just some snark.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Thanks for the quickie on USAID! And...OMG on the other ('fair use')!

No kidding!? Gannet/Pentagon contacted the Mods...

I'm open-mouthed. Clearly they intend their war machine tripe for a limited audience only.

Well, "we the people" sure need a lot of good investigators these days, but I hope somebody picks this up and investigates the Pentagon connections to Gannet newspapers. I smell some rats.

[unhappycamper]

5. The only thing I know for sure is the Admins got an email requesting I post only one paragrph from

the military rags.

That's it. That's all I know.