Mercenaries Third Largest Force in Iraq

[rikzilla]

Apparently nothing can goad anyone into one intelligent comment on the issue of the use of mercenaries.
And nothing can shame you into admitting to false accusations.
Rik means never having to say you're sorry.
Was wondering when you'd show your face again.
Hi, how ya doing? Have fun keeping score.

You, and AUP put me in mind of the dancing Palestinians on 9/11. First they attempted to supress the video,...then when it came out they claimed the video was false.

Why don't you just be honest for once SG,...admit that you're glad those dirty mercenaries are dead. Shemp may be disgusting, but at least he's the most honest pig in the liberal sty.

-z

 

[Kodiak]

I find it hard to see what all the fuss is about. Bush said, "Bring it on", and they did. There just isn't any pleasing some people.

Like I said:



"This is a rare example where liberals have chosen to position themselves to profit politically from any failure of either the War on Terror or the Invasion of Iraq and the replacing of Saddam with a freely elected representative democracy. They view each dead coalition soldier as just another possible nail in Bush's electoral coffin. Each successful terrorist attack is another possible blow to the Bush campaign. Each disagreement among the Iraqi governing council is a potential drop in Bush's latest percentages. Some are even actually hoping that Bin Laden isn't captured until after the election.

The only thing sadder than this fact is that most see nothing wrong with this..."

 

[Jocko]

Jocko: "Very droll, sir. Perhaps you could tattoo it on your liberal hiney!"

By the way, I am not wrong because I am a liberal, and you are not correct because you are a conservative. So why attempt to bolster an argument with what you consider to be name-calling.

It shows defensiveness and weakness, and undercuts your own argument.

Sorry, I didn't realize "liberal" was an insult. Sounds to me like this is this more of your double-standard newthink, where the insulting content is measured by the speaker and not by the content.

And do you want to know what really undercuts one's argument? Blatantly dodging a simple question from someone who disagrees with you.

Since you may have lost sight of the question which has so put you on the defensive, I'll repeat it for you:

As non-governemt representatives with an agenda, does your definition extend to the human shields who briefly took up residence in Baghdad and elsewhere prior to the war?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Like I said:



"This is a rare example where liberals have chosen to position themselves to profit politically from any failure of either the War on Terror or the Invasion of Iraq and the replacing of Saddam with a freely elected representative democracy. They view each dead coalition soldier as just another possible nail in Bush's electoral coffin. Each successful terrorist attack is another possible blow to the Bush campaign. Each disagreement among the Iraqi governing council is a potential drop in Bush's latest percentages. Some are even actually hoping that Bin Laden isn't captured until after the election.

The only thing sadder than this fact is that most see nothing wrong with this..."

 

[Virgil]

Actually I think Osama will be a November surprise for Mr. Bush. They may even have him now (in Cuba since they won't tell us who is there) . or know exactly where he is so he can be captured at our pleasure.


and we won't have any attacks because another terrorist attack in the US will give Bush the White House for 4 more years. Once Kerry wins then we will be attacked weekly. at least that is what they say at rapure ready.

I voted for Mr. Bush the first time but not again. I feel I got the bait and switch.




Virgil

 

[Kodiak]

Apparently nothing can goad anyone into one intelligent comment on the issue of the use of mercenaries.

Really? Then why don't you respond to the following?



Originally ignored in the "Falluja" thread by subgenius and once again here in this thread, where I reposted it:


Originally posted by subgenius: "Well, I wasn't going to derail the thread, but since you brought it up, quite rightfully. The unfortunate victims were some of the many private security forces there.

Although these in particular may have been protecting some of the many contractors there, they are, in part, an example of Cheney's fetish for "privatizing". There is a huge American mercenary industry around the world, but now in particularly in Iraq.
"Privatizing" sounds good to some, but has many downsides, which should be obvious.
I was floored when one of the networks reported last night, without noting the significance, that the security for the US administrator Bremer is provided by a private company!

There is something terribly wrong when we cannot, or do not, provide our own official protection for our own officials. If the US cannot provide such on our own behalf as a government, how do we expect to succeed in acheiving whatever our objectives are as a nation?

Of course the privatizing has the added "benefit" of enriching one's buddies, it one wants to, and avoiding complying with the niceties of law and the rules of war."


My response: "Hello, real world calling...

Neither the Treasury Dept. (Secret Service) nor the U.S. military can handle the workload of protecting every US diplomat and official in harm's way. All the U.S. mercs are either former military or former local, state, or federal law enforcement. They are patriotic, professional, and proud. Why shouldn't they be paid?

You hint at the evils of privatizing, but other than your standard liberal fear of government not having a hand in everything, you have failed to provide any examples. Care to now?"

 

[Kodiak]

Looks like you're violating your own "Rule 11" again...

 

[Doubt]

I see the quality of debate in this thread has sunk to new lows. Lots of people trying to score points for their pet political agendas and little meaningful discussion.

I guess this thread shows why the moderated discussion section was created.

Sorry, but calling mercenaries “paid killers” is just as bad as calling them “security guards”. Both terms are narrow descriptions that are being used for political purposes. In both cases the full nature of the individuals and their professions are ignored in favor of a comic book image need to fit your worldviews.

If you really want some more background, here is another link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mercenary.htm

Today’s world is a far cry from the 1960s when private military activity usually meant mercenaries of the rather unsavoury kind involved in post-colonial or neo-colonial conflicts. Such people still exist; and some of them may be present at the lower end of the spectrum of private military companies. One of the reasons for considering the option of a licensing regime is that it may be desirable to distinguish between reputable and disreputable private sector operators, to encourage and support the former while, as far as possible, eliminating the latter.

This page contains a listing of different companies involved and more links to various items on the topic.

I imagine that those of you using this thread for political theater (both left and right), will not bother to read it. Never let good information get in the way of politics. You may just have to think.

 

[Graham]

If you really want some more background, here is another link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mercenary.htm

This page contains a listing of different companies involved and more links to various items on the topic.
[/B]

Nice link - I note that "Blackwater Security", employer of the four men killed in Falluja is on the list of "Mercenary / Private Military Companies (PMCs)"

Traditionally, there has always been little sympathy for those who place their lives on the line purely for money, certainly less than for national soldiers, I think.

Whether you consider these men mercernaries or security guards, I suppose saying that they were only in it for the money involves a certain amount of specualtion, however.

Graham

 

[subgenius]

Really? Then why don't you respond to the following?



Originally ignored in the "Falluja" thread by subgenius and once again here in this thread, where I reposted it:


Originally posted by subgenius: "Well, I wasn't going to derail the thread, but since you brought it up, quite rightfully. The unfortunate victims were some of the many private security forces there.

Although these in particular may have been protecting some of the many contractors there, they are, in part, an example of Cheney's fetish for "privatizing". There is a huge American mercenary industry around the world, but now in particularly in Iraq.
"Privatizing" sounds good to some, but has many downsides, which should be obvious.
I was floored when one of the networks reported last night, without noting the significance, that the security for the US administrator Bremer is provided by a private company!

There is something terribly wrong when we cannot, or do not, provide our own official protection for our own officials. If the US cannot provide such on our own behalf as a government, how do we expect to succeed in acheiving whatever our objectives are as a nation?

Of course the privatizing has the added "benefit" of enriching one's buddies, it one wants to, and avoiding complying with the niceties of law and the rules of war."


My response: "Hello, real world calling...

Neither the Treasury Dept. (Secret Service) nor the U.S. military can handle the workload of protecting every US diplomat and official in harm's way. All the U.S. mercs are either former military or former local, state, or federal law enforcement. They are patriotic, professional, and proud. Why shouldn't they be paid?

You hint at the evils of privatizing, but other than your standard liberal fear of government not having a hand in everything, you have failed to provide any examples. Care to now?"

Thoroughly covered in posted links above. Esp. the NYT ed.
Mr Doubt has explained some of the cost issues and I thanked him for educating me.
We have reached quite an impasse here. I have indicated the issues I feel are important on mercenaries in general throughout history. No one has addressed them. And so it goes.

"Say something once, why say it again."---David Byrne.

 

[Kodiak]

Thoroughly covered in posted links above. Esp. the NYT ed.
Mr Doubt has explained some of the cost issues and I thanked him for educating me.
We have reached quite an impasse here. I have indicated the issues I feel are important on mercenaries in general throughout history. No one has addressed them. And so it goes.

"Say something once, why say it again."---David Byrne.

Thank you...aversion noted.

 

[crackmonkey]

Incidentally, they weren't mercenaries after all, as defined by the Geneva Convention...

http://www.darrenkaplan.net/archives/000562.html

 

[Doubt]

Incidentally, they weren't mercenaries after all, as defined by the Geneva Convention...

http://www.darrenkaplan.net/archives/000562.html

An interesting definition, as far as it is useful.

I think that may resolve questions as to what their legal status is. They could be treated as combatants and regular soldiers.

But if they are not mercenaries, then what are they? They fit every other part of the definition. They are still soldiers for hire. And the same firms that hire them do hire forgin nationals that do fit the definition. Same jobs, same company, different nationality. But by definition, one’s from Chile are mercenaries and those from the US are what?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1162392,00.html

Last month Blackwater USA flew a first group of about 60 former commandos, many of who had trained under the military government of Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) training camp in North Carolina.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......

 

[Grammatron]

An interesting definition, as far as it is useful.

I think that may resolve questions as to what their legal status is. They could be treated as combatants and regular soldiers.

But if they are not mercenaries, then what are they? They fit every other part of the definition. They are still soldiers for hire. And the same firms that hire them do hire forgin nationals that do fit the definition. Same jobs, same company, different nationality. But by definition, one’s from Chile are mercenaries and those from the US are what?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1162392,00.html



If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......

Bodyguards, private security? I think convention is trying to point out that they are not fighting strictly for money but rather for money through the support of one side. At any rate I don't see the significance of labeling them as mercenaries, bodyguards or funny looking people as none of that changes what they were doing there, why they were doing it and what was done to them.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

I don't know if anyone reads any David Drake, but he's a science fiction author and Vietnam vet most famous for his Hammer's Slammers series of novels about futuristic mercenaries. I'd consider him an authority on the subject as some of his books have lengthy essays on the history of mercs. So I emailed him about his opinion on these guys working in Iraq. I won't reprint his reply here but it can be summed up as "Of course they're mercenaries!"

But that's just one man's educated opinion, not an appeal to authority.

 

[Grammatron]

I don't know if anyone reads any David Drake, but he's a science fiction author and Vietnam vet most famous for his Hammer's Slammers series of novels about futuristic mercenaries. I'd consider him an authority on the subject as some of his books have lengthy essays on the history of mercs. So I emailed him about his opinion on these guys working in Iraq. I won't reprint his reply here but it can be summed up as "Of course they're mercenaries!"

But that's just one man's educated opinion, not an appeal to authority.

Let me ask you a question; How does that change anything?

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Let me ask you a question; How does that change anything?

It doesn't. Just another opinion. I had a question, I asked someone with the knowledge to give me an answer.

 

[subgenius]

Let's call them "funny looking people" for the moment (with thanks to Lewis Carroll) and address the political, social, ethical and monetary issues that these " funny looking people " present.

They have been set out in the links I posted above.

And although Doubt presented a good argument that they don't cost us more because they're already trained and ready to go, and are usually in for a short time assignment, it seems to me that since many are ex-US military, we have in fact paid for much of their training, and the contractors are getting the benefit of that. The length of the assignment in Iraq is open ended at this point.

Nightline's topic last night was on this whole general subject.

Even some of our own military are questioning the use of them, including the fact that we train these guys and they leave earlier to get the bigger paycheck, which the American taxpayers end up paying anyway, in addition to the other implications.

Am I saying the use of them is all good or all bad, per se? No. But there are issues whether anyone likes it or not.

 

[Grammatron]

Let's call them "funny looking people" for the moment (with thanks to Lewis Carroll) and address the political, social, ethical and monetary issues that these " funny looking people " present.

They have been set out in the links I posted above.

And although Doubt presented a good argument that they don't cost us more because they're already trained and ready to go, and are usually in for a short time assignment, it seems to me that since many are ex-US military, we have in fact paid for much of their training, and the contractors are getting the benefit of that. The length of the assignment in Iraq is open ended at this point.

Nightline's topic last night was on this whole general subject.

Even some of our own military are questioning the use of them, including the fact that we train these guys and they leave earlier to get the bigger paycheck, which the American taxpayers end up paying anyway, in addition to the other implications.

Am I saying the use of them is all good or all bad, per se? No. But there are issues whether anyone likes it or not.

I don't know if you intended it or not but it sounds like you are saying that people go into the army to get training so later on they can become mercenaries and more so American taxpayers are getting screwed since they are paying for it. I have to disagree with that since there is still 2, 4+ years of service these people have to complete for not so stellar pay in not so comfortable conditions. If upon completing their course they decide to become a bodyguard for a singer or go to a hostile territory and secure facilities and convoys how is that any of American taxpayer's business or concern? Further more it appears to be that these "funny looking people" are not strictly signing up on monetary grounds and do have some ethics. So what are the issues here that you want to discuss?

 

[subgenius]

Just all the ones people have raised throughout the ages as reflected by the links I posted summarizing them.
Not just in it for the money and have ethics? Don't know what evidence there is for that, but they certainly will go wherever there's a paycheck, and the owners admit that freely. And why would that be a bad thing?

Everyone has ethics, they just disagree on the definition of that word.

Hey, I agree that we, who are not independently wealthy, are all mercenary (if not "mercenaries").
Its the old joke that we're all whores and we're just quibbling about the price.

Some in the military itself make a distinction between those regulars that are in it more for the love of their country (they're hardly in it for the good pay), and the "funny looking people."
There is an inherent difference however fine.