If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Marine awarded the CMOH in Aghanistan can't work due to accusations of mental instability by BAE after quitting due to them selling advanced military tech to Pakistan. Way to support the troops BAE   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 90
    More: Dumbass, BAE Systems, Medal of Honor, Aghanistan, Pakistani military, U.S. Department of State, military award, bridge collapse, Pakistan  
•       •       •

8362 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2011 at 5:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-29 05:24:47 PM
Fun fact: while the Medal of Honor is awarded "in the name of Congress," it isn't actually called the Congressional Medal of Honor. It's just the Medal of Honor, no "Congressional."
 
2011-11-29 05:34:57 PM
they'd be making more money if it wasn't for those whiny troops. why do you hate the free market subby?
 
2011-11-29 05:35:28 PM
Sounds like a legitimate claim to me (by dakota, not BAE). Given defense contractors actions in the past I am inclined to think their full of shiat
 
2011-11-29 05:35:46 PM
That headline gave me mental instability.
 
2011-11-29 05:35:49 PM
Well one day im sure BAE will be getting all the military tech back in the form of missles fired at us.
 
2011-11-29 05:36:11 PM
You know, as much as I disagree with a lot of posters on Fark, you guys are almost always better than the Yahoo people.

/The stupid, it burns!
 
2011-11-29 05:36:22 PM

swahnhennessy: That headline gave me mental instability.

 
2011-11-29 05:37:51 PM
Did BAE break any laws by selling the technology to Pakistan?
 
2011-11-29 05:38:10 PM

Theeng: the Yahoo people.


psssst, they prefer to be called Republicans.
 
2011-11-29 05:38:59 PM
His citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving with Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, on 8 September 2009. Corporal Meyer maintained security at a patrol rally point while other members of his team moved on foot with two platoons of Afghan National Army and Border Police into the village of Ganjgal for a pre-dawn meeting with village elders. Moving into the village, the patrol was ambushed by more than 50 enemy fighters firing rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and machine guns from houses and fortified positions on the slopes above. Hearing over the radio that four U.S. team members were cut off, Corporal Meyer seized the initiative. With a fellow Marine driving, Corporal Meyer took the exposed gunner's position in a gun-truck as they drove down the steeply terraced terrain in a daring attempt to disrupt the enemy attack and locate the trapped U.S. team. Disregarding intense enemy fire now concentrated on their lone vehicle, Corporal Meyer killed a number of enemy fighters with the mounted machine guns and his rifle, some at near point blank range, as he and his driver made three solo trips into the ambush area. During the first two trips, he and his driver evacuated two dozen Afghan soldiers, many of whom were wounded. When one machine gun became inoperable, he directed a return to the rally point to switch to another gun-truck for a third trip into the ambush area where his accurate fire directly supported the remaining U.S. personnel and Afghan soldiers fighting their way out of the ambush. Despite a shrapnel wound to his arm, Corporal Meyer made two more trips into the ambush area in a third gun-truck accompanied by four other Afghan vehicles to recover more wounded Afghan soldiers and search for the missing U.S. team members. Still under heavy enemy fire, he dismounted the vehicle on the fifth trip and moved on foot to locate and recover the bodies of his team members. Corporal Meyer's daring initiative and bold fighting spirit throughout the 6-hour battle significantly disrupted the enemy's attack and inspired the members of the combined force to fight on. His unwavering courage and steadfast devotion to his U.S. and Afghan comrades in the face of almost certain death reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

That sounds like someone who's insane to me!
 
2011-11-29 05:39:25 PM

Theeng: You know, as much as I disagree with a lot of posters on Fark, you guys are almost always better than the Yahoo people.

/The stupid, it burns!


The one thing we miss is the angry pakistanis on yahoo comments who post rebuttals in bad english
 
2011-11-29 05:39:40 PM

Theeng: You know, as much as I disagree with a lot of posters on Fark, you guys are almost always better than the Yahoo people.

/The stupid, it burns!


I tend to ignore Yahoo! comment sections. They are full of... well, yahoos.
 
2011-11-29 05:39:51 PM
Terrible. I don't believe I'll be buying from them anymore.
 
2011-11-29 05:39:59 PM
Is it just me, or did BAE dodge a question past the writer?

Isn't the State Department authorizing the sale, not mandating it? That would imply BAE probably marketed the scopes, arranged a deal, requested permission, got permission, and is now saying it's the State Department's responsibility?

"The U.S. Department of State, not BAE Systems, makes the decision on what defense-related products can be exported."

Just because you -can- export something doesn't mean you -should-.
 
2011-11-29 05:40:11 PM
Due to headline, head asplode
 
2011-11-29 05:42:57 PM

NeedlesslyCanadian: Fun fact: while the Medal of Honor is awarded "in the name of Congress," it isn't actually called the Congressional Medal of Honor. It's just the Medal of Honor, no "Congressional."


See, I was just going to say "Don't include the "Congressional" in the title, it just damages the value of the award.
 
2011-11-29 05:43:09 PM

spcMike: Did BAE break any laws by selling the technology to Pakistan?


That's fairly irrelevant to the story.

He felt they were acting in an unethical manner, so he let them know and he quit.

They then launched false accusations against him, displaying unethical behavior.
 
2011-11-29 05:43:16 PM
Damn the British! We kicked their ass in World War II and we can do it again! Just ask those pansy-ass Canadians aka America Jr.
 
2011-11-29 05:43:29 PM

spcMike: Did BAE break any laws by selling the technology to Pakistan?


Not a one. The Marine never claimed that they did. What he did claim, and he is 100% correct, is that there is a very good chance that those weapons will be used to kill US and Allied troops.

What I find reprehensible is that BAE stated that they do not make the decision pertaining to what items they sell to other countries. That is pure bullshiat. The State Dept. does provide an approved list, but BAE still has the right to sell or not sell items on that list to Pakistan.

Considering the way that Pakistan has been acting lately, coupled with the fact that the State Department moves so slow on such issues, you have a pretty good reason to take items like the scopes OFF of the approved list. The State Department will get around to it after 10 or 20 soldiers have been killed by a Paki using one of those scopes.
 
2011-11-29 05:44:41 PM

stucka: Just because you -can- export something doesn't mean you -should-.


I don't think you're familiar with the global arms trade. At all.

Also, Mr. Meyer was absolutely correct when you take this into account: GAO report.
 
2011-11-29 05:44:42 PM

stucka: Is it just me, or did BAE dodge a question past the writer?

Isn't the State Department authorizing the sale, not mandating it? That would imply BAE probably marketed the scopes, arranged a deal, requested permission, got permission, and is now saying it's the State Department's responsibility?

"The U.S. Department of State, not BAE Systems, makes the decision on what defense-related products can be exported."

Just because you -can- export something doesn't mean you -should-.


You are correct. Somebody should biatch slap them.
 
2011-11-29 05:45:25 PM

NeedlesslyCanadian: Fun fact: while the Medal of Honor is awarded "in the name of Congress," it isn't actually called the Congressional Medal of Honor. It's just the Medal of Honor, no "Congressional."


I see that I am not needed here.
 
2011-11-29 05:45:27 PM
Thanks, Yahoo News. You are well on your way to bringing us World War III, courtesy of the same freaks that brought us the "Iraqi war."

Critical thinking, people, It's what will save us.
 
2011-11-29 05:46:49 PM

chuckufarlie: spcMike: Did BAE break any laws by selling the technology to Pakistan?

Not a one. The Marine never claimed that they did. What he did claim, and he is 100% correct, is that there is a very good chance that those weapons will be used to kill US and Allied troops.

What I find reprehensible is that BAE stated that they do not make the decision pertaining to what items they sell to other countries. That is pure bullshiat. The State Dept. does provide an approved list, but BAE still has the right to sell or not sell items on that list to Pakistan.

Considering the way that Pakistan has been acting lately, coupled with the fact that the State Department moves so slow on such issues, you have a pretty good reason to take items like the scopes OFF of the approved list. The State Department will get around to it after 10 or 20 soldiers have been killed by a Paki using one of those scopes.


Exactly, they're making it sound like the Government is forcing them to sell the scopes to Pakistan. That's completely wrong. They can force the company to not sell a product, but you can't sit there and say "The gubbermint is making us sell to them, so we wash our hands of it while still collecting all the revenue from the sale."
 
2011-11-29 05:47:02 PM
Yes Mr. Marine, if your buddies have to die so that BAE can make more money, then that's how it is. Who did you think you were fighting for, anyway?

And who do you think made damn sure that State Dept. let its product be exported?
 
2011-11-29 05:47:09 PM

PsiChi: Thanks, Yahoo News. You are well on your way to bringing us World War III, courtesy of the same freaks that brought us the "Iraqi war."

Critical thinking, people, It's what will save us.


for reporting the news?
 
2011-11-29 05:47:10 PM
This guy just wants everything handed to him without working for it. These guys spend a few years in the military and think they're entitled to whatever high paying job they want without having to work their way up. Obviously this guy has no work ethic if he just up and quits because his boss disagree with him. Welcome to the real world! No more barracks keggers!
 
2011-11-29 05:47:10 PM
Allegations made by his co worker and fellow Marine (Bobby McCreight).

Guy probably hit on co worker girlfriend one night in the bar and this is his retaliation.

Also, BAE will probably fire McCreight. You never give a bad reference to a future employer. Too many lawsuits.

Q: hey we are thinking about hiring Marine Meyer, is he a good employee?
A: I can only confirm that he was employed here from ....

Q: I see, Is he eligable to be rehired by your company in the future.
A: No.

All truthful, no lawsuit.
 
2011-11-29 05:47:13 PM
He won't need a job. He'll make plenty of money as a spokesmen, going around the country telling his story and and giving out inspiration.

Hell, I'm surprised the military hasn't promoted him to an officer yet. Aren't all living MOH recipients eventually promoted up the chain?
 
2011-11-29 05:47:20 PM

stucka: Is it just me, or did BAE dodge a question past the writer?

Isn't the State Department authorizing the sale, not mandating it? That would imply BAE probably marketed the scopes, arranged a deal, requested permission, got permission, and is now saying it's the State Department's responsibility?

"The U.S. Department of State, not BAE Systems, makes the decision on what defense-related products can be exported."

Just because you -can- export something doesn't mean you -should-.


Yea, that line of thought, as disgusting and retarded as it is, is becoming very prevalent in our society. Nothing burns my ass more than hearing some assbag say " well it's legal! "

/looking at you Wall St.
//Politicians
///Credit Rating Agencies
///Slashies!
 
2011-11-29 05:48:38 PM

altrocks: This guy just wants everything handed to him without working for it. These guys spend a few years in the military and think they're entitled to whatever high paying job they want without having to work their way up. Obviously this guy has no work ethic if he just up and quits because his boss disagree with him. Welcome to the real world! No more barracks keggers!


sarcasm or bad troll, not sure
 
2011-11-29 05:49:02 PM
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.
 
2011-11-29 05:50:10 PM

scottydoesntknow: That's completely wrong. They can force the company to not sell a product, but you can't sit there and say "The gubbermint is making us sell to them, so we wash our hands of it while still collecting all the revenue from the sale."


Yeah, the only nation our government forces us to do business with is Israel.

It's a crime in the U.S. for a business owner to refuse to engage in business transactions with Israeli businesses if the basis for refusal is the fact that it's an Israeli business.
 
2011-11-29 05:50:56 PM

Buffalo77: Allegations made by his co worker and fellow Marine (Bobby McCreight).

Guy probably hit on co worker girlfriend one night in the bar and this is his retaliation.

Also, BAE will probably fire McCreight. You never give a bad reference to a future employer. Too many lawsuits.

Q: hey we are thinking about hiring Marine Meyer, is he a good employee?
A: I can only confirm that he was employed here from ....

Q: I see, Is he eligable to be rehired by your company in the future.
A: No.

All truthful, no lawsuit.


Heh, that's exactly what I was told by our HR department. All you do is confirm they worked there and whether or not you would rehire if they re-applied. Say anything else about the person and you just open yourself (and the company) up for easy lawsuits.
 
2011-11-29 05:52:23 PM
But I was assured that corporations would police themselves. You mean they'll do whatever makes them the most money? I'm shocked.
 
2011-11-29 05:52:57 PM
From and HR standpoint they should have never badmouthed a former employee it's slander.
 
2011-11-29 05:52:58 PM
But did the BAE use the CMOH to STFU and GBTW? If not, OMG & WTF?!
 
2011-11-29 05:56:21 PM

Hughlander: That sounds like someone who's insane to me!


Bat-Shait crazy is the proper term. And when you throw in what we actually pay someone for doing that is really is nuts.

Lucky he as that Maxim gig to fall back on.

There really should be a cash amount awarded with the metal. A nice little monthly amount that guarantees that we dont have to hear about stories like this.
 
2011-11-29 05:56:39 PM
Maybe McCreight is his buddy and they're going to split the settlement money....ever thought of that?

i655.photobucket.com
 
2011-11-29 05:57:04 PM
Unethical business proves they are unethical after hero claims their business practices are unethical. Ok then.

Don't fark with a New Mexican, BAE. I'll buy all my deadly shiat from your biggest competitor.
 
2011-11-29 05:58:55 PM
spcMike: Did BAE break any laws by selling the technology to Pakistan?

Retarded conservative morality system detected.
 
2011-11-29 05:58:59 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: There really should be a cash amount awarded with the metal. A nice little monthly amount that guarantees that we dont have to hear about stories like this.


Then even fewer people would be awarded it. Just another veteran's benefit to cut so Congress can claim they're reducing spending.
 
2011-11-29 06:01:33 PM
BAE is british is it not? Can't they just tell the US government to stfu?
 
2011-11-29 06:02:25 PM

chuckufarlie: spcMike: Did BAE break any laws by selling the technology to Pakistan?

Not a one. The Marine never claimed that they did. What he did claim, and he is 100% correct, is that there is a very good chance that those weapons will be used to kill US and Allied troops.

What I find reprehensible is that BAE stated that they do not make the decision pertaining to what items they sell to other countries. That is pure bullshiat. The State Dept. does provide an approved list, but BAE still has the right to sell or not sell items on that list to Pakistan.

Considering the way that Pakistan has been acting lately, coupled with the fact that the State Department moves so slow on such issues, you have a pretty good reason to take items like the scopes OFF of the approved list. The State Department will get around to it after 10 or 20 soldiers have been killed by a Paki using one of those scopes.


I notice that as well. BAE "We had no choice! They allowed us to do it!" seems like the kind of thing a mentally unstable person says as an excuse.
 
2011-11-29 06:03:21 PM

logruszed: chuckufarlie: spcMike: Did BAE break any laws by selling the technology to Pakistan?

Not a one. The Marine never claimed that they did. What he did claim, and he is 100% correct, is that there is a very good chance that those weapons will be used to kill US and Allied troops.

What I find reprehensible is that BAE stated that they do not make the decision pertaining to what items they sell to other countries. That is pure bullshiat. The State Dept. does provide an approved list, but BAE still has the right to sell or not sell items on that list to Pakistan.

Considering the way that Pakistan has been acting lately, coupled with the fact that the State Department moves so slow on such issues, you have a pretty good reason to take items like the scopes OFF of the approved list. The State Department will get around to it after 10 or 20 soldiers have been killed by a Paki using one of those scopes.

I notice that as well. BAE "We had no choice! They allowed us to do it!" seems like the kind of thing a mentally unstable person says as an excuse.


You know who else claimed that they were just being allowed to do it?
 
2011-11-29 06:05:19 PM

stucka: Is it just me, or did BAE dodge a question past the writer?

Isn't the State Department authorizing the sale, not mandating it? That would imply BAE probably marketed the scopes, arranged a deal, requested permission, got permission, and is now saying it's the State Department's responsibility?

"The U.S. Department of State, not BAE Systems, makes the decision on what defense-related products can be exported."

Just because you -can- export something doesn't mean you -should-.


THIS!
 
2011-11-29 06:06:28 PM

stucka: Is it just me, or did BAE dodge a question past the writer?

Isn't the State Department authorizing the sale, not mandating it? That would imply BAE probably marketed the scopes, arranged a deal, requested permission, got permission, and is now saying it's the State Department's responsibility?


THIS!! It's called the FAR-Foreign Acquisition Regulations--and the Export Control Act. BAE marketed the scopes and requested permission from the Government to sell them to Pakistan.
 
2011-11-29 06:08:39 PM

SoCalSurfer: altrocks: This guy just wants everything handed to him without working for it. These guys spend a few years in the military and think they're entitled to whatever high paying job they want without having to work their way up. Obviously this guy has no work ethic if he just up and quits because his boss disagree with him. Welcome to the real world! No more barracks keggers!

sarcasm or bad troll, not sure


Why can't it be both?
 
2011-11-29 06:10:31 PM

stucka: Is it just me, or did BAE dodge a question past the writer?

Isn't the State Department authorizing the sale, not mandating it? That would imply BAE probably marketed the scopes, arranged a deal, requested permission, got permission, and is now saying it's the State Department's responsibility?

"The U.S. Department of State, not BAE Systems, makes the decision on what defense-related products can be exported."

Just because you -can- export something doesn't mean you -should-.


morality is for other people, these guys are supplying wars... hey if they'll buy it we'll sell it until someone says no... also fun they probably have a huge unmonitored government contract and tax breaks....
 
2011-11-29 06:11:54 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Hughlander: That sounds like someone who's insane to me!

Bat-Shait crazy is the proper term. And when you throw in what we actually pay someone for doing that is really is nuts.

Lucky he as that Maxim gig to fall back on.

There really should be a cash amount awarded with the metal. A nice little monthly amount that guarantees that we dont have to hear about stories like this.


MoH recipients recieve $1194 a month. If they go on to retire they get an additional 10% in the retirement check.
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report