BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 08:09 PM

Just how many of these so-called private security workers are armed?

Do they answer to the U.S. govt. or their employer if accused of a crime. I have a gut feeling that they are simply fired and shipped home. I am also concerned about their training and their experience. Is a criminal record's check mandatory?

All of these issues can be conveniently side-stepped when you send them to Iraq. Who is responsible for their conduct? I am not concerned about the unarmed who are there on legitimate business but the others...?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:32 PM

Ah, fellas? The title of the NY Times article is "Modern Mercenaries on the Iraqi Frontier."

The NY Times calls them mercenaries, so shouldn't we? That is what they are. They are also in Iraq, so the suggestion that the links I provided didn't prove anything because it had no examples from Iraq seems kinda bizarre. artbrooks provided the link to the US mercenaries in Iraq story, and asked for instances of what I was talking about of US mercenaries in Latin America. I provided links on stories from the Clinton years, but you could find them going back decades.

Do a Google on United Fruit Company + CIA coup + Guatemala sometime and see what comes up.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 02:58 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushtugs.jpg


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/aas0.gif

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 02:59 PM

correction... http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushthugs.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: Gareth
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:31 PM

Nmmm! I am still waiting too hear, and define, what is the illegallity of

1/. The employment of Security Gaurds

2/. The Liberation of Iraq.

Or are those knee jerkers unable to quote facts ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: GUEST,Hrothgar in Canberra
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:41 PM

And the best thing for the politicians is that when you're counting casualties, you only have to count the regulars. Civilians are just accidents. Much better to have 10 troops and 20 "civilians" killed than 30 troops.

Oops, overdid the cynicism tablets this morning. I'd better go to the folk festival and settle down.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:03 PM

Gareth -

...and I'm waiting to hear the actual number of U.S. personnel dead and injured. And while you're at it can you provide the correct number of women and children that have died or been maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 911? Much appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:14 PM

Gareth:
1) Most actions have a number of effects
2) Some actions have both effects which are good, and effects which are bad.
3) For an action to be justified, the good effects will outweigh the bad effects.
4) It is a good thing that Saddam is locked away somewhere. And there are no doubt other good things that have happened.
5) It is not a good thing that quite a lot of other things have happened, are happening and can be expected to happen.

Maybe at the end of the day it'll turn out that you are right and that the good effects outweigh the bad.   But there is no more point in your going on about how anybody who disagrees with you must love Saddam Hussein. It's no different from if I were saying you must be rejoicing in the death toll today. That'd be a lie too, and an illogical lie.