Slashdot Mirror

Here it is: DD Form 441, Department of Defense Security Agreement. That was trivially easy to find. I've included the fine print below, in case anyone doesn't feel like clicking through to a US military website.

WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Government has in the past purchased or may
in the future purchase from the Contractor supplies or services,
which are required and necessary to the national security of the
United States; or may invite bids or request quotations on proposed
contracts for the purchase of supplies or services, which are
required and necessary to the national security of the United
States; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that certain security measures be
taken by the Contractor prior to and after being accorded access to
classified information; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to define and set forth the
precautions and specific safeguards to be taken by the Contractor
and the Government in order to preserve and maintain the security
of the United States through the prevention of improper disclosure
of classified information, sabotage, or any other acts detrimental to
the security of the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of
the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto agree as
follows.
Section I - SECURITY CONTROLS
(A) The Contractor agrees to provide and maintain a system of
security controls within the organization in accordance with the
requirements of the "National Industrial Security Program Operating
Manual," DoD 5220.22-M (hereinafter called the Manual) attached
hereto and made a part of this agreement, subject, however, (i) to
any revisions of the Manual required by the demands of national
security as determined by the Government, notice of which shall be
furnished to the Contractor, and (ii) to mutual agreements entered
into by the parties in order to adapt the Manual to the Contractor's
business and necessary procedures thereunder.

(B) The Government agrees that
it shall indicate when necessary,
by security classification (TOP SECRET, SECRET, or
CONFIDENTIAL), the degree of importance to the national security
of information pertaining to supplies, services, and other matters to
be furnished by the Contractor to the Government or by the
Government to the Contractor, and the Government shall give
written notice of such security classification to the Contractor and of
any subsequent changes thereof; provided, however, that matters
requiring security classification will be assigned the least restricted
security classification consistent with proper safeguarding of the
matter concerned, since overclassification causes unnecessary
operational delays and depreciates the importance of correctly
classified matter. Further, the Government agrees that when
Atomic Energy information is involved it will, when necessary,
indicate by a marking additional to the classification marking that
the information is "RESTRICTED DATA." The "Department of
Defense Contract Security Classification Specification" (DD Form
254) is the basic document by which classification, regrading, and
declassification specifications are documented and conveyed to the
Contractor.
(C) The Government agrees, on written

> The F22 is the competition for the F16. The F35 is the competition for the F18 Superhornet and the A10.

Not according to Lockeed Martin, and not according to the General Accounting Office of the US government.

http://afcommission.whs.mil/pu...

Both of them describe the F-35 as the planned replacement for the F-16.

It's not fine; the army is still having problems integrating. The media portrays the military as an integrated force, but the reality is that there is still a lot of work to be done before minorities have a fair shot at making rank in the army.

Why else would Congress need to establish the Military Leadership Diversity Commission?

Well, the figures for people with amputations aren't readibly available. What you can find, though, is the figures on total casualties. See this link. So we know that (as of Feb 2006), a total of 23,000 troops were wounded in action and survived, of which some 7000 required to be medevaced. (Hence my 7000 figure from the earlier post.) I've looked a bit, but I haven't seen any reports on the final disposition of those casualties - how many of those make full recoveries, how many are amputess, blind, deaf, or end up with medical discharges at some point.

Um, name just 20% of those, please. . . . 10%, perhaps?
01-10: Antigua, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Cuba, Denmark
11-20: Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Japan, Luxembourg
21-30: Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, South Korea, Turkey
31-33: United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela

Want more? This is only where we have official bases of troops. That's 33 nations of official bases.

We also have troops in another 70+ countries.

Don't believe me? Maybe you believe your government.

ooh,, since nam...
http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates. pdf

Here's some relevant US Code:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/curren t/225_1.htm

Some items are purchased from qualifying foreign countries: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/curren t/225_8.htm#225.872

Anyone see China on the list of qualifying countries? Cause I sure didn't.

And none of these companies look foreign to me, let alone Chinese, but maybe that's just what the Chinese want us to think.

Of course it's a lot more fun to run around waving our hands in the air. Sorry I interrupted.

"Not so, Vietnam deaths were almost double than those from the Korean War and about the same as the First World War. Only the Civil War and WWII reported a higher number of deaths."

(all casualties numbers listed here are American of course)
World War 1 - 116,516 Casualties
World War 2 - 405,399 Casualties
Korean War - 54,246
Vietnam War - 58,209

All numbers from the Department of Defense and Veteran Affairs as well as sources linked below. I'm sure you could google other credible sources, and you'd still come up with the same numbers.

Far different from your claim that it was double the Korean War and the same as WW1.

http://www.abmc.gov/abmc46.htm
http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm

"I'd like to think that Americans would have never fully and wholeheartedly backed a war half a world away against a people holding a strategically insignificant territory and whose primary demand had always been independence."

In hindsight it might have been insignificant, but at the time, it was one of the front lines against the USSR. Stalin intentions had been clear from the beginning of the end of WW2, which is to say he knew the USSR and the U.S. would be fighting their ideological war in small countries.

As for their primary demand being independence, well when the French were there, sure that was the primary demand, but after the french left? The North wanted a unified Vietnam under communist control, regardless if south vietnamese didn't want to be subjected to their rule, and by the way the South most definitely did not. So the argument about them wanting independence is horseshit, especially in light of the fact the South Vietnamese didn't enjoy the freedoms and independence, you claim the North fought for, when the North overran Saigon.

As an American, I can say that many of us do, and we don't like it. Chalmers Johnson recently wrote a book called the Sorrows of Empire making the case that we are indeed an empire in all but name. This realization has been slowly growing. People who make the claim that we are an empire are less often dismissed as cynics. Even the Economist is claiming that we are an empire.

We have military personell in over 135 nations. Most have less than 20 and are probably guarding embassies, but more than you would think have over 1000, including Belgium. The UK has over 13,000. It can be said that the sun never sets on the American Empire.

Many Americans are horified by this. Some are proud of it. Some are both horrified and proud.

Another interesting site

You are in error. The only reason you believe that the only casualties for these two conflicts were friendly fire is because:

1. You're a moron.
2. The media gives greater coverage to friendly fire incidents.

Actually, friendly fire accounted for a large percentage (but by no means all) of the battle casualties during the Gulf War. The Allies lost many more than those 9 British soldiers that were mistakenly bombed. However, there were actually more non-battle deaths in the Gulf War than battle deaths. Furthermore, the U.S. military suffered more casualties outside the Persian Gulf than in it during the Gulf War (training accidents, etc) [DIOR Casualty Statistics]. Bet you never would have thought that more people died as a result of normal activities than battle. That's because non-battle casualties don't get the coverage and attention of battle casualties.

In Afghanistan friendly fire again seems to be to blame (finally figures are not yet available) for a large percentage of casualties.

Friendly fire accidents are horrible and they do need to be addressed (they are). I think we're seeing a general increase in the number of friendly fire deaths (percentage-wise) because we've gotten so much better at killing than our enemies. We've drastically reduced the casualty figures in recent conflicts. I've no doubts that our government is working to reduce casualties even further. And you can bet that they are giving friendly-fire and the bad coverage it gives them more than it's fair share of attention.

• American casualties in Afghanistan
• First British casualties in Afghanistan
• Canadian casualties in Afghanistan

Will the X-45 have an impact on casualties? Who knows ... it has yet to be tested.