News Flash: Private security firms are going to be vital after the US pulls out. Iraq is nowhere close to having the police and military forces necessary to stabilize the country. These civilian contractors fill a vital role that the US military will not or cannot take on.
Want them "brought to justice" - maybe we can get a group rate that includes all the 14 year-olds with AKs that are killing and burning them?
If you hate the war leader and the reasoning- fine. But it is intellectually lazy (and outrageous) to welcome every piece of bad news, applaud every American death, and then use that bad news to make a your case that blames America first for every wrong in the world. There are a lot of people in general that cannot wait to hear something they can spin negatively about Iraq. If there is a news story about the price of yo-yos on the streets of Baghdad, there are a wad of people who want to know how we can make this the problem of Bush, Haliburton, and America.
It's a circus, driven by hate for one man and what he stands for. If ya hate Bush, fine. But not everything evil in the world is somehow tied to this single man.
Yeah. Right. Iraq had ties to 911? Saddam was an immediate threat? Saddam had massive weapons stockpiles? Iraq was going to be a walk in the park? Iraqis would be dancing in the streets (and I don't mean the ones hired by the US for the money shot in Baghdad). MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Now who has a greater track record of making assumptions?
Sure but when was Hong kong a free state?
ill take "democratic capitalism" over islam, communism or dictatorships any day. They fu#*!d with us 911 (killed americans) ****ed with us in Bali (Ausssies & American & British deaths ) and in Spain so iraq pushed its luck once too much ... Big f camelwad. Of course we allll know there no WMD's but If you believe all you read... Quite frankly the middle east is full of opportunistic groups who have been killing each other for centuries. And money makes the world go round. Like it or not war creates technical advances in our society and tech advances creates new industries and products and new prosperity for western countries. The fundamentalists want to destroy western civilisation and that a fact. We cant afford to have opportunistic groups group together and that what Iraq is all about limiting power, oh and oil of course
The same people who cry and whine over this are the same people who cry and whine over our troops doing a job they weren't "trained" for. So the US hires someone that does that job and now they cry and whine that private firms are doing a job that the troops should be doing. Can't have it both ways.
Uh gee. Not to shoot a hole in your argument, BUT...
You seem to think there are only two options: untrained troops or civilian militia.
How about sending the troops who ARE trained (we DO have thousands of active duty personnel who are highly trained but who have not yet been to Iraq). Why not send THEM instead of sending tens of thousands of weekend warriors (untrained) to supplant the current active duty corps, or instead of sending Bullets-n-Kevlar Inc (unethical)??
Uh gee. Not to shoot a hole in your argument, BUT...
You seem to think there are only two options: untrained troops or civilian militia.
How about sending the troops who ARE trained (we DO have thousands of active duty personnel who are highly trained but who have not yet been to Iraq). Why not send THEM instead of sending tens of thousands of weekend warriors (untrained) to supplant the current active duty corps, or instead of sending Bullets-n-Kevlar Inc (unethical)??
Then they'lll cry and whine about the high cost of training.
I don't think you can call these private people "untrained" "weekend warriors".
I'm not. I'm saying the large numbers of Army Reserve and Guard personnel that are starting to replace the active duty personnel are the relatively "untrained, weekened warriors". The private security firm guys apparently *are* very well trained, but they're not a part of the military. Both solutions are wrong as long as we intend to use US forces to stabilize the country... that's what I'm saying.
And FWIW, I've never heard many people complain about the high cost of training expenditures for our troops, sailors and pilots. I do hear them complain about the cost of fighter jets, Apaches and tanks... but not the cost of training men and women. Not sure where you got that from but I've never noticed it....
And here I thought mercenaries were against that good ol' international law...
Isn't that the "official" reason hundreds of people are still locked up Guantanamo? That they are "unlawful" combatants from third countries outside of regular armies?
But seriously, the problem I have is that these are citizens in a country that is trying to establish the "Rule of Law".
They are definitly engaging with insurgents and returning fire (if not instigating (but I doubt it)) with high powered weapons and coordination similar to that brought in by a country's military: They are providing security but they are a very small step away from being payed gangs of thugs . . .
well, they ARE 'payed gangs of thugs', but, the things seperating them from the mobs they are 'securing' against are:
1- That they are doing it for profit and
2- They are not even Citizens of the country that they are operating in
3- As foriegners, they are flounting the Rule of Law of their 'host' country
4- They are not soldiers but citizens who should be held accountable by the standards of the Law of whatever host country that they are in.
While I understand the idea behind them, I also think that corruption comes into the picture in many ways, not all of them necessary or actualized:
They replace a job that should be given to soldiers working out of 'duty' to the country with a citizen working for profit not held accountable to the same standards that the soldier is held to.
There is a possible conflict of interest: if a security firm is raking in big bucks, as I know that they are, through Government contracts, and those contraccts are secure as long as there services are needed, then it is in their interest to ensure that their services are continually needed: That could happen by maintaining chaos, even if it is merely at a eye-wash level
Soldiers are being 'tapped' to join the security fimrs as soon as they go home . . . lines are being blurred: who do they work for and what is the purpose: money without any form of moral responsibility or military duty with the standards that are implied therein?
If they kill someone, they should be treated as citizens, as they are not intsitutional officials from the Host country (police etc) working within their Laws,
and even if they are merely 'defending themselves', then they should go to trial and have their innocence established in a court of Law just as all other citizens would have to do.
And here I thought mercenaries were against that good ol' international law...
Isn't that the "official" reason hundreds of people are still locked up Guantanamo? That they are "unlawful" combatants from third countries outside of regular armies?
Seems like you can have it both ways Scott...
This this the same "international law" that we change to fit our anti-US anti-Jew (ooops I mean Israel) bias with every new headline?
Is there one book that has all these "laws" in it?
But seriously, the problem I have is that these are citizens in a country that is trying to establish the "Rule of Law".
They are definitly engaging with insurgents and returning fire (if not instigating (but I doubt it)) with high powered weapons and coordination similar to that brought in by a country's military: They are providing security but they are a very small step away from being payed gangs of thugs . . .
...
Boy you assume so much and are so full of rage. You don't know any of these people and you just know they are "thugs". Don't assume too much.
I love the way you can't question American foreign policy without becoming unpatriotic now.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
This this the same "international law" that we change to fit our anti-US anti-Jew (ooops I mean Israel) bias with every new headline?
And anti-semitic, too, of course.
I rather think that if you parked your car too near Scott's that might make you an anti-semite, especially if he couldn't open his door and had to get in by the passenger seat.
"See? EVERYONE hates Jews."
But Scott, you're not J...
"BUT I MIGHT HAVE BEEN!"
I'm beginning understand the new unilateralism a little better.
I'm sorry, Sir, this table's reserved.
"WHERE'S YOUR SUICIDE VEST, YOU JEWHATER?"
is really not so far from
"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND THE JEWS OOPS I MEAN ISRAEL SO MUCH?"
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
If I constantly banged on about something in an aggressive, neurotic and extremely irritating fashion, even if it were irrelevant to the topic at hand, to the point where people told me to shut the **** up, that wouldn't mean I was getting too close to anything other than another banning and becoming a die-cast, shatterproof, write it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica dickhead.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Boy you assume so much and are so full of rage. You don't know any of these people and you just know they are "thugs". Don't assume too much.
Of course that is all that you can respond to. These people are paid for their muscle . . . paid because they are 'baddass' . . . that is the positive spin on what I would call a legitimized form of thuggery . . .
I guess if you define thuggery as only being robbery by force then you're right . . . but I am defining it here as beig paid for muscle
Now that that is out of the way and seen as trivial we can get beyond your usual tactic of glomming on to some little aside in a post, talking about that and then disregarding the entirety of the post . . . but I doubt you got past the 'thug' in the post
Of course that is all that you can respond to. These people are paid for their muscle . . . paid because they are 'baddass' . . . that is the positive spin on what I would call a legitimized form of thuggery . . .
I guess if you define thuggery as only being robbery by force then you're right . . . but I am defining it here as beig paid for muscle
Now that that is out of the way and seen as trivial we can get beyond your usual tactic of glomming on to some little aside in a post, talking about that and then disregarding the entirety of the post . . . but I doubt you got past the 'thug' in the post
These people are security guards and body guards. Come back to earth.
We are outsourcing the roles because some very excited liberals and budgeteers started crying Peace Dividend the second the Berlin Wall came down and then even louder as the Soviet regime crumbled. The military today is nearly 1/3 of the size it was ten years ago. Ten years ago there wouldn't have been any private security needed because the military would have enough people to do the job itself. It doesn't work both ways, make the choice to either pony up the $$ for the military, or accept from now on that about half of what the military used to do outside of actual armed conflict is now going to be outsourced.
Wrong . . .
Donald Rumsfeldt had a very clear mission to shrink the military down and make it a leaner fighting machine
Dems are not the only people responsible for the size of the military.
AND, more importantly
It is absolutely THE calling card of Conservative ideology that Privatized is better that Governmental . . . the power-players reshaping the Pentagon are the firms that stand to get contracts and the politicians and Generals that are linked to those corporations:
So, the three reasons for this privatization:
1- less need for standing army (Cold-War is over)
2- Ideology that privatization is best
3- Those players that stand to profit pull the strings . . . Look up Carlyle Group, Bechtell etc etc
Start to see a possible conflict of interest: America in Chaos is Corporations in profit
Why else would Eisenhower warn of the "military undustrial complex"?
And to add: the real reason Rummy wanted a "smaller" army was bigger private profits!
Comments
Want them "brought to justice" - maybe we can get a group rate that includes all the 14 year-olds with AKs that are killing and burning them?
If you hate the war leader and the reasoning- fine. But it is intellectually lazy (and outrageous) to welcome every piece of bad news, applaud every American death, and then use that bad news to make a your case that blames America first for every wrong in the world. There are a lot of people in general that cannot wait to hear something they can spin negatively about Iraq. If there is a news story about the price of yo-yos on the streets of Baghdad, there are a wad of people who want to know how we can make this the problem of Bush, Haliburton, and America.
It's a circus, driven by hate for one man and what he stands for. If ya hate Bush, fine. But not everything evil in the world is somehow tied to this single man.
8)
Originally posted by tonton
Yeah. Right. Iraq had ties to 911? Saddam was an immediate threat? Saddam had massive weapons stockpiles? Iraq was going to be a walk in the park? Iraqis would be dancing in the streets (and I don't mean the ones hired by the US for the money shot in Baghdad). MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Now who has a greater track record of making assumptions?
Sure but when was Hong kong a free state?
ill take "democratic capitalism" over islam, communism or dictatorships any day. They fu#*!d with us 911 (killed americans) ****ed with us in Bali (Ausssies & American & British deaths ) and in Spain so iraq pushed its luck once too much ... Big f camelwad. Of course we allll know there no WMD's but If you believe all you read... Quite frankly the middle east is full of opportunistic groups who have been killing each other for centuries. And money makes the world go round. Like it or not war creates technical advances in our society and tech advances creates new industries and products and new prosperity for western countries. The fundamentalists want to destroy western civilisation and that a fact. We cant afford to have opportunistic groups group together and that what Iraq is all about limiting power, oh and oil of course
Originally posted by Scott
The same people who cry and whine over this are the same people who cry and whine over our troops doing a job they weren't "trained" for. So the US hires someone that does that job and now they cry and whine that private firms are doing a job that the troops should be doing. Can't have it both ways.
Uh gee. Not to shoot a hole in your argument, BUT...
You seem to think there are only two options: untrained troops or civilian militia.
How about sending the troops who ARE trained (we DO have thousands of active duty personnel who are highly trained but who have not yet been to Iraq). Why not send THEM instead of sending tens of thousands of weekend warriors (untrained) to supplant the current active duty corps, or instead of sending Bullets-n-Kevlar Inc (unethical)??
Originally posted by Moogs
Uh gee. Not to shoot a hole in your argument, BUT...
You seem to think there are only two options: untrained troops or civilian militia.
How about sending the troops who ARE trained (we DO have thousands of active duty personnel who are highly trained but who have not yet been to Iraq). Why not send THEM instead of sending tens of thousands of weekend warriors (untrained) to supplant the current active duty corps, or instead of sending Bullets-n-Kevlar Inc (unethical)??
Then they'lll cry and whine about the high cost of training.
I don't think you can call these private people "untrained" "weekend warriors".
And FWIW, I've never heard many people complain about the high cost of training expenditures for our troops, sailors and pilots. I do hear them complain about the cost of fighter jets, Apaches and tanks... but not the cost of training men and women. Not sure where you got that from but I've never noticed it....
Isn't that the "official" reason hundreds of people are still locked up Guantanamo? That they are "unlawful" combatants from third countries outside of regular armies?
Seems like you can have it both ways Scott...
Originally posted by Celco
Are we scraping bottom here in AO these days?!?!
Feels like it . . . .
. . . maybe he'll just go away . . . .
But seriously, the problem I have is that these are citizens in a country that is trying to establish the "Rule of Law".
They are definitly engaging with insurgents and returning fire (if not instigating (but I doubt it)) with high powered weapons and coordination similar to that brought in by a country's military: They are providing security but they are a very small step away from being payed gangs of thugs . . .
well, they ARE 'payed gangs of thugs', but, the things seperating them from the mobs they are 'securing' against are:
1- That they are doing it for profit and
2- They are not even Citizens of the country that they are operating in
3- As foriegners, they are flounting the Rule of Law of their 'host' country
4- They are not soldiers but citizens who should be held accountable by the standards of the Law of whatever host country that they are in.
While I understand the idea behind them, I also think that corruption comes into the picture in many ways, not all of them necessary or actualized:
They replace a job that should be given to soldiers working out of 'duty' to the country with a citizen working for profit not held accountable to the same standards that the soldier is held to.
There is a possible conflict of interest: if a security firm is raking in big bucks, as I know that they are, through Government contracts, and those contraccts are secure as long as there services are needed, then it is in their interest to ensure that their services are continually needed: That could happen by maintaining chaos, even if it is merely at a eye-wash level
Soldiers are being 'tapped' to join the security fimrs as soon as they go home . . . lines are being blurred: who do they work for and what is the purpose: money without any form of moral responsibility or military duty with the standards that are implied therein?
If they kill someone, they should be treated as citizens, as they are not intsitutional officials from the Host country (police etc) working within their Laws,
and even if they are merely 'defending themselves', then they should go to trial and have their innocence established in a court of Law just as all other citizens would have to do.
Originally posted by New
And here I thought mercenaries were against that good ol' international law...
Isn't that the "official" reason hundreds of people are still locked up Guantanamo? That they are "unlawful" combatants from third countries outside of regular armies?
Seems like you can have it both ways Scott...
This this the same "international law" that we change to fit our anti-US anti-Jew (ooops I mean Israel) bias with every new headline?
Is there one book that has all these "laws" in it?
Originally posted by pfflam
Are we scraping bottom here in AO these days?!?!
Feels like it . . . .
. . . maybe he'll just go away . . . .
But seriously, the problem I have is that these are citizens in a country that is trying to establish the "Rule of Law".
They are definitly engaging with insurgents and returning fire (if not instigating (but I doubt it)) with high powered weapons and coordination similar to that brought in by a country's military: They are providing security but they are a very small step away from being payed gangs of thugs . . .
...
Boy you assume so much and are so full of rage. You don't know any of these people and you just know they are "thugs". Don't assume too much.
Originally posted by Scott
This this the same "international law" that we change to fit our anti-US anti-Jew (ooops I mean Israel) bias with every new headline?
Is there one book that has all these "laws" in it?
why don't you read up on it? You got a PHD, right?
And, BTW, could you please stop suggesting that people here are anti-semites in every second post you write? Because its getting quite tiresome...
I could end all my post with calling you an arab-hating racist to, but I don't. It really doesn't bring enything positive to the table.
Originally posted by Scott
This this the same "international law" that we change to fit our anti-US anti-Jew (ooops I mean Israel) bias with every new headline?
And anti-semitic, too, of course.
I rather think that if you parked your car too near Scott's that might make you an anti-semite, especially if he couldn't open his door and had to get in by the passenger seat.
"See? EVERYONE hates Jews."
But Scott, you're not J...
"BUT I MIGHT HAVE BEEN!"
I'm beginning understand the new unilateralism a little better.
I'm sorry, Sir, this table's reserved.
"WHERE'S YOUR SUICIDE VEST, YOU JEWHATER?"
is really not so far from
"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND THE JEWS OOPS I MEAN ISRAEL SO MUCH?"
Good morning Scott. Here's your coffee.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by Scott
I seem I'm getting too close to the truth. Sorry.
If I constantly banged on about something in an aggressive, neurotic and extremely irritating fashion, even if it were irrelevant to the topic at hand, to the point where people told me to shut the **** up, that wouldn't mean I was getting too close to anything other than another banning and becoming a die-cast, shatterproof, write it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica dickhead.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by New to Scott
You got a PHD, right?
But:
Originally posted by Scott
I think you're knee is jerking a bit to violently.
Then ... ?
Originally posted by Scott
Boy you assume so much and are so full of rage. You don't know any of these people and you just know they are "thugs". Don't assume too much.
Of course that is all that you can respond to. These people are paid for their muscle . . . paid because they are 'baddass' . . . that is the positive spin on what I would call a legitimized form of thuggery . . .
I guess if you define thuggery as only being robbery by force then you're right . . . but I am defining it here as beig paid for muscle
Now that that is out of the way and seen as trivial we can get beyond your usual tactic of glomming on to some little aside in a post, talking about that and then disregarding the entirety of the post . . . but I doubt you got past the 'thug' in the post
Originally posted by Scott
I seem I'm getting too close to the truth. Sorry.
Yeah . .. when you read it . . .but then you dismiss it offhand as usual.
Originally posted by pfflam
Of course that is all that you can respond to. These people are paid for their muscle . . . paid because they are 'baddass' . . . that is the positive spin on what I would call a legitimized form of thuggery . . .
I guess if you define thuggery as only being robbery by force then you're right . . . but I am defining it here as beig paid for muscle
Now that that is out of the way and seen as trivial we can get beyond your usual tactic of glomming on to some little aside in a post, talking about that and then disregarding the entirety of the post . . . but I doubt you got past the 'thug' in the post
These people are security guards and body guards. Come back to earth.
Originally posted by AirSluf
We are outsourcing the roles because some very excited liberals and budgeteers started crying Peace Dividend the second the Berlin Wall came down and then even louder as the Soviet regime crumbled. The military today is nearly 1/3 of the size it was ten years ago. Ten years ago there wouldn't have been any private security needed because the military would have enough people to do the job itself. It doesn't work both ways, make the choice to either pony up the $$ for the military, or accept from now on that about half of what the military used to do outside of actual armed conflict is now going to be outsourced.
Wrong . . .
Donald Rumsfeldt had a very clear mission to shrink the military down and make it a leaner fighting machine
Dems are not the only people responsible for the size of the military.
AND, more importantly
It is absolutely THE calling card of Conservative ideology that Privatized is better that Governmental . . . the power-players reshaping the Pentagon are the firms that stand to get contracts and the politicians and Generals that are linked to those corporations:
So, the three reasons for this privatization:
1- less need for standing army (Cold-War is over)
2- Ideology that privatization is best
3- Those players that stand to profit pull the strings . . . Look up Carlyle Group, Bechtell etc etc
Start to see a possible conflict of interest: America in Chaos is Corporations in profit
Why else would Eisenhower warn of the "military undustrial complex"?
And to add: the real reason Rummy wanted a "smaller" army was bigger private profits!