Talk:Global Strategies Group
I reverted changes that Ledaglyptis made to the Global Strategies Group article, because the user had removed referenced information and replaced it with what read like promotional language taken off the company's website. Any removal of information must be clearly explained on the article's "discussion" page: was the information incorrect or out of date, etc.
Best, Diane Farsetta 10:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Again, restoring info deleted by Ledaglyptis. If you persist in removing info without clearly explaining why, you will be banned as a SourceWatch user. Diane Farsetta 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Honourable organisation or porfiteers?
My comment for companies such as Global Strategies Group, is that how can anyone justify the existence of an organisation that effectively profits from other nations' misfortunes?
Rather than promote peace and do the work they do (build infrastructure, protect resources, etc) in a way that is fully sustainable and ensures that full transfer of knowledge is applied so that nations are left to manage their own systems, these companies go there, flood project areas with cheap mercenaries they source from even poorer nations such as Fuji and Nepal, and take complete control so that the nations and their societies become completely dependent on their presence.
In their promotional material, such companies as Global Strategies Group portend to be guided by principles of ethics and human rights, but the realities scream a wildly different truth. If their aim was really to encourage peace and their work mantra included a promise to transfer 100% skills to the local community in a year or 2 - adequate time to find the right local experts and ensure projects can continue to run independently (these organisations go to countries they have no clue about, place complete foreigners at heads of project who not only know nothing about the local protocols and culture, but couldn't care a less) - then why do they not devise a model that is 100% geared to finding local talent to head ALL their projects? Why got to places like Nepal and Fuji to source cheap ex-military men and place British and South Africans to head the projects? Because they are so ignorant they honestly believe locals from unfortunate nations are not capable of managing their own crisis.
They go to these place with the intention of staying there as long as possible. They guarded Baghdad Airport for over four years before they were reluctantly ousted by a local security company offering the government local services for much more reasonable price. Imagine having London's Heathrow guarded by 1000+ Fujian or Nepalese policemen??? If it wouldn't be acceptable to us, why on earth should it be acceptable to the Iraqis? One thing is going somewhere as a consultant and introducing a rigorous training programme...another thing is imposing complete foreigners (who are willing to work for 10 times less than the Caucasian project managers - British, Australian, South African, New Zealand) to guard a nation's main airport, and claiming after 4+ years that they are in the right because they have transferred knowledge by 70% (which I can confirm is incorrect by the way - the ratio of foreign personnel / local personnel is much much less - and they placed NO senior Iraqi personnel to head the project - their reason, funnily enough was because they didn't trust the Iraqi's because a senior Iraqi official may leak to the government...but what on earth would they have to hide if they are so clean and legit as they claim to be???). It would be inconceivable right? After four years people are ready to go into surgery and perform life saving operations...so why on earth was there not 100% transfer of skills in Bagdhad Airport after 4+ years?
Bottom line - how would the CEO and Founder of Global Strategies Group afford this mansion in London and Dubai + private art collection worth millions if not for the continuation of other nations' internal strife?
