Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's the thing about being an arms dealer.
You kind of want to sell your stuff.
As for dodgy practices, in the Middle East/South America, no-ones hands are clean when it comes to "Dodgy Practices"
Back handers and directorships are standard operating practice for the defence industry (as well as oil, energy, manufacturing etc...) BAE started getting flak from the US right around the time it started buying into some big interests over there.
Also, it's a "British" company that employs 52,000 people in the US, and by law all the main execs of the US division are US Citizens.
Of course, "American company vs American hero" isn't as good a thread title...
A point to note though, in the Saudi contract, BAE are actually the middle men.
It's a MOD contract that BAE are fulfilling, and was signed off on by HMG.
You know the investigation that got shut down?
By all accounts a certain ex PM had his name all over it

"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.

That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.

A BAE Systems manager said Meyer "was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," according to the lawsuit.

All big no-no's when being asked about a former employee.

If the manager did say these things, he's out of line and could cast BAE some big bucks.

It doesn't mean Sgt. Meyer isn't a dick and isn't a drunk. Sending a scathing email like he did wasn't a smart move. He stood up for his principles, I guess.

But there are laws about this sort of thing. The Manager should have simply said that "Sgt. Meyer worked here from ___ to ___." If asked if he'd hire him back, he should say "Corporate policy would prevent it."

And left it at that.

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.

I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?

While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.

Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley.

Are you saying a company shouldn't sell weapons to people because they might misuse them? Why do you hate the free market? And freedom? and AMERICA?!

I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.

If they could be proven, perhaps. It really doesn't change the fact that the only real responsibility an arms company has is to generate profit for its shareholders via the legal sale of armaments. 'Guns don't kill people, etc.' and all that...

AustonT wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

For contrast: One of the "Black Hawk Down" heroes was a nonce. Might be a medal winner but he still has an unhealthy interest in children. Probably not going to get any mint jobs in promotion, I would have thought.

WTF? Randy Shugart and Gry Gordon was killed in Action at Mogadishu....killed 3 Oct.....1993

Probably talking about John Stebbin, Silver Star, who was convicted of child sodomy and rape. However I doubt he knows the difference between a SS and CMH in terms of status and prestige (and employability as a "face")

The "status" of his award isn't really the relevant part. The point is that its entirely possible to do wonderful things militarily speaking, yet still be a nasty piece of work, or a bad employee or whatever. Hell, they used to hand out VCs to our army when it was made up almost entirely of drafted criminals.

Defamtion seems to be proven for SGT. Meyer. I do believe he probaly has the email traffic btween the two supervisors. Thats a done deal. Question now what would BAE do if they're high tech gear starts appearing in Afghanistan. Every scope has a serial number that can be linked with the/a sell and a movement control number to show date of shipment recieved of a set of scpes. Tension are high as it is and cmpounding it with evidence of Pakistan supplying war material to the insurgents is not going to be good. Torkam already shut down for awhile. Which leave Spin Badok open for convoy border crossing...ugh...nvm

Albatross wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.

I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?

While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.

Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley.

Are you saying a company shouldn't sell weapons to people because they might misuse them? Why do you hate the free market? And freedom? and AMERICA?!

When a company is making its money with defense contracts from nations who are attempting to stabilize a region, they should not be selling to a nation which is known to be the major source of destabilization within the region.

P.S., this has nothing to do with misuse of weapons. This has everything to do with potentially arming extremist groups with supplemental technology; in this case high-powered top of the line thermal imaging scopes.

I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.

If they could be proven, perhaps. It really doesn't change the fact that the only real responsibility an arms company has is to generate profit for its shareholders via the legal sale of armaments. 'Guns don't kill people, etc.' and all that...

Legal sale of armaments also requires a legal responsibility to account for what those arms are being used for. If you're supplying a nation which regularly has shipments "disappearing"--you should not be allowed to be a defense contractor.

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

I agree. Where the company hails from has no bearing in this, for me.
That said, I think a US company would have alot harder time at home trying to drag
the Veteran through gak though.

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Continuity?

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.

I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?

While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.

Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley. I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.

Surely if the US government wanted its troops to have top class night vision gear they could buy it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.

I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?

While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.

Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley. I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.

Surely if the US government wanted its troops to have top class night vision gear they could buy it.

Sure, if BAE didn't pursue contracts with Pakistan.

Actually. The US military maintains the leading edge in NVG's. We're 4th generation. Also fielded an enhance version that hit Afghanistan towards the end of '09. Durable and quite light. Not a lead weight on ACH's and the weight bag in back is smaller. Like a roll pennies but a bit smaller

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.

I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?

While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.

Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley. I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.

Surely if the US government wanted its troops to have top class night vision gear they could buy it.

Sure, if BAE didn't pursue contracts with Pakistan.

Why would that stop BAE selling the same kit to the USA? Or if the US wanted exclusive rights, they could have paid for them.

That's just good capitalism.

Who cares what nationality is involved. This should have been settled the 40k way.

"You disobeyed direct orders and saved 36 lives as a result"

*Shoots him in the head"

"Let this be a lesson for the rest of you! Never waver in your loyalty to the Emperor!!!"

Kanluwen wrote:

"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.

That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.

It's still an internal e-mail though... unless i misread it...

purplefood wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.

That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.

It's still an internal e-mail though... unless i misread it...

Meyer is the one pressing charges against BAE.

After he sent that internal email, his manager started becoming harassing and confrontational.

Kanluwen wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.

That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.

It's still an internal e-mail though... unless i misread it...

Meyer is the one pressing charges against BAE.

After he sent that internal email, his manager started becoming harassing and confrontational.

How does that make him outspoken?

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.

I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?

While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.

Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley.

Are you saying a company shouldn't sell weapons to people because they might misuse them? Why do you hate the free market? And freedom? and AMERICA?!

When a company is making its money with defense contracts from nations who are attempting to stabilize a region, they should not be selling to a nation which is known to be the major source of destabilization within the region.

'Alleged', rather than 'known', and 'a' rather than 'the', I'd say. Plus, BAE is a company, not a government. It can trade with whomsoever it pleases, as long as no laws are broken. Is selling arms to Pakistan illegal?

P.S., this has nothing to do with misuse of weapons. This has everything to do with potentially arming extremist groups with supplemental technology; in this case high-powered top of the line thermal imaging scopes.

BAE is not arming those extremist groups. It has no responsibility for what is done with their products once they are sold, unless of course you want to hold Beretta responsible for every murder committed with one of their pistols.

Legal sale of armaments also requires a legal responsibility to account for what those arms are being used for. If you're supplying a nation which regularly has shipments "disappearing"--you should not be allowed to be a defense contractor.

I think you're making those rules up.

Kanluwen wrote:
Legal sale of armaments also requires a legal responsibility to account for what those arms are being used for..

That's incorrect. Under ITAR, legal liability for the contractor in question ends after the initial transfer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why would that stop BAE selling the same kit to the USA? Or if the US wanted exclusive rights, they could have paid for them.
.

Or, as is generally the case, simply prohibited the sales to begin with.

marv335 wrote:
A point to note though, in the Saudi contract, BAE are actually the middle men.
It's a MOD contract that BAE are fulfilling, and was signed off on by HMG.
You know the investigation that got shut down?
By all accounts a certain ex PM had his name all over it

Well I can take a good guess at who that is. Sometimes, I genuinely wish that hell exists, just because you don't like to think that someone can cause so much pain in their life but receive none in return.

On a side note, I was under the impression that BAE was heavily subsidised by the UK government. Is that not still the case?

We can't stifle good 'ol fashioned capitalism.

A paying customer is a paying customer...

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?

Continuity?

Because like BP the people on site are Americans, so are their managers. Just as BAE system in the states also everyone to a man with direct connection to the Macondo well. However when there was a feth up the word British was bandied about, even though the name of the comopany no longer British (in either case). Obama called BP 'British Petroleum' enough times to be suspicious.

You add all this to the current US governments siding with Argentina over the Falklands and it doesn't look good. In fact half the time I wonder if we are getting backstabbed.

Orlanth wrote:
Because like BP the people on site are Americans, so are their managers. Just as BAE system in the states also everyone to a man with direct connection to the Macondo well. However when there was a feth up the word British was bandied about, even though the name of the comopany no longer British (in either case). Obama called BP 'British Petroleum' enough times to be suspicious.

BAE is the result of the merger of two British corporations.

BP is held, primarily by British interests.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Because like BP the people on site are Americans, so are their managers. Just as BAE system in the states also everyone to a man with direct connection to the Macondo well. However when there was a feth up the word British was bandied about, even though the name of the company no longer British (in either case). Obama called BP 'British Petroleum' enough times to be suspicious.

BAE is the result of the merger of two British corporations.

BP is held, primarily by British interests.

However on site decisions were made by mangement staff who were American citizens , BP is 60-40 UK/US owned. However the word British was frequently used with regards to culpability, including from the President who cannot claim not to know better. The entire disaster is known as the 'BP spill' and not just by the press even before blame has been formally parsed in the courts. I have severed doubts that BP will get fair treatment in US legal system, indeed Obamas lob sided handling of culpability which looks like 'blame those who have the cash' rather than 'blame those responsible' which may or may not be BP. I wonder if BP has a legal case that the US government has been prejudiced against the company.

BAE is a Brtiish company, however its US operations are strictly controlled by the US State department due to the nature of what they are trading and US based staff at most levels are US citizens, by law. The UK has 'close' ties with Pakistan, there is no choice in that; and the US blows hot and cold regarding Pakistan. If Meyer doesn't like trading with Pakistan he was in the wrong job.

Orlanth wrote:
However on site decisions were made by mangement staff who were American citizens , BP is 60-40 UK/US owned. However the word British was frequently used with regards to culpability, including from the President who cannot claim not to know better

Well, yeah, its a company owned at 60% by British citizens with a history of being based in Britain. That places it over Cadbury in terms of Britishness.

Orlanth wrote:
I have severed doubts that BP will get fair treatment in US legal system, indeed Obamas lob sided handling of culpability which looks like 'blame those who have the cash' rather than 'blame those responsible' which may or may not be BP

I thought it was quite skillful, honestly. Blame the foreign nationals, who hold majority share of the company, instead of Americans.

Orlanth wrote:
BAE is a Brtiish company, however its US operations are strictly controlled by the US State department due to the nature of what they are trading and US based staff at most levels are US citizens, by law.

The controls are strict on paper, but considering how often ITAR is violated, and how often Boeing isn't shut down, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of political will for enforcement.

Orlanth wrote:
The UK has 'close' ties with Pakistan, there is no choice in that; and the US blows hot and cold regarding Pakistan. If Meyer doesn't like trading with Pakistan he was in the wrong job.

That is clearly true.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However on site decisions were made by mangement staff who were American citizens , BP is 60-40 UK/US owned. However the word British was frequently used with regards to culpability, including from the President who cannot claim not to know better

Well, yeah, its a company owned at 60% by British citizens with a history of being based in Britain. That places it over Cadbury in terms of Britishness.

Nevertheless the people who made the mistakes that caused the oil spill were American. The closest to the feth up being British was the 'gaffes' of the then CEO, and his faults were entirely in relation to his media profile and the press had it in for him anyway. He was being played, especially by Obama, Heyward was the wrong man for a media campaign, though word has it he was better at his real job, which is why he had no problems getting further high profile work in the same industry.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
I have severed doubts that BP will get fair treatment in US legal system, indeed Obamas lob sided handling of culpability which looks like 'blame those who have the cash' rather than 'blame those responsible' which may or may not be BP

I thought it was quite skillful, honestly. Blame the foreign nationals, who hold majority share of the company, instead of Americans.

It was clever in that it outsourced fiscal responsibility for the clean up and ancillary expenses such as a drilling monatorium. However had it been a US company I doubt the same would hasve happened, especially not paying for all the other companies to have an arbitrary break.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
BAE is a Brtiish company, however its US operations are strictly controlled by the US State department due to the nature of what they are trading and US based staff at most levels are US citizens, by law.

The controls are strict on paper, but considering how often ITAR is violated, and how often Boeing isn't shut down, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of political will for enforcement.

I wonder if the lack of political will extends beyond US companies, somehow I doubt it. Lookling at Concorde and TSR2 I very much doubt it. BAE is more closely controlled by US rather than UK proliferation policy. We may have been better off following the same model as the French in terms of how the armaments industry is organised and its connection with government. When the French are dictated to on terms of proliferation policy they have a tendency not to listen, and get away with it.

Orlanth wrote:
Nevertheless the people who made the mistakes that caused the oil spill were American.

And the person that delayed Obama's recognition of the event was Rahm Emanuel, but the organization of which he was a part (the Obama Administration) will still, deservedly, receive blame.

Orlanth wrote:
It was clever in that it outsourced fiscal responsibility for the clean up and ancillary expenses such as a drilling monatorium. However had it been a US company I doubt the same would hasve happened, especially not paying for all the other companies to have an arbitrary break.

Of course not, but that's the beauty of international capitalism.

Orlanth wrote:
I wonder if the lack of political will extends beyond US companies, somehow I doubt it. Lookling at Concorde and TSR2 I very much doubt it. BAE is more closely controlled by US rather than UK proliferation policy. We may have been better off following the same model as the French in terms of how the armaments industry is organised and its connection with government. When the French are dictated to on terms of proliferation policy they have a tendency not to listen, and get away with it.

Well, yeah, no one is going to invade France. The reason behind the UK's tendency to listen to American demands is a mystery to me, probably related to private sector ties, though.

I'm all for free market, but at the same time, free market principles shouldn't apply to military-grade weapons.

"Sure, we're at war with them, but let's see them some ammo anyway!"

Vast majority of personna military grade weapons either fires a 5.56mm or a 7.62mm. So selling ammo not a big issue. BAE was selling some serious high tech sniper scopes to the Pakistani's. Which is not really the issue either. If an insurgent gets caught with one of the scopes in Afghanistan that BAE sold to Pakistan then there's a serious lack of accountability. Also have to take in account the condition of the scope itself. How well maintain it was kept in. Since it was a sniper scope then we would take a look at the rifle itself. Just the weapon alone can tell you which country manufactered it.

On a side note......Russia screamed bloody murder about the Stinger missiles we gave to the Mujahideen when they were in Afghanistan

Refrain from using derogatory ethnic names and don't push it with the swear filter either.

Kraft own Cadbury. Praise the lord they haven't started making American chocolate.