|
03 Apr 04 - 12:26 PM (#1153610) Subject: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST The most interesting aspect of the American media reporting about Fallujah murders of 4 Americans this week, was the insistence amongst the Pentagon and White House reporters that the victims were "private security contractors". What they really are is paid mercenaries. Why not more discussion of the fact that the number of paid American (most of them former military) mercenaries in Iraq far exceeds the number of British troops there. So, why no public discussion about this aspect of the "new military"? The US funded mercenary/paramilitary forces in Iraq apparently don't have to live with same constraints that the official military does, so that is probably one major reason why the US military is now relying more on the Guard and a paid mercenary paramilitary force, than it is it's own military forces. Is it cheaper to use a for-hire mercenary paramilitary force? When did this shadow military take over so much of the job from the regular military? Anyone know much about this? |
|
03 Apr 04 - 12:28 PM (#1153611) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: CarolC I think it would be interesting to know what company or companies they work for. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 12:36 PM (#1153615) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Amos They work for a Virginia security firm; most of this sort of contractor -- and yes, they are private contractors -- employ Special Force personnel at better terms of employment than the government does. The armed forces do not have enough manpower in country to provide as much security as it turns out is needed, due to a misestimation on the part of the Bushites on what the locals would do in repsonse to the invasion. As a result, they hire private contractors to fill in for security services they cannot provide. I forget the name of the firm but it has been in the news and there has been plenty of discussion about it. A |
|
03 Apr 04 - 12:47 PM (#1153618) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST I haven't got time right now to research this online, but I'm sure some information is out there. My understanding is that there are multiple corporate firms employing mercenary/paramilitary forces in Iraq to the US military. The language being used to describe who and what they are is deliberately misleading and obfuscatory. They are hired guns, pure and simple. What concerns me is that there isn't the accountability with a mercenary paramilitary force that we have with our official military. Who do they answer to if they engage in practices in violation of the Geneva Conventions for instance? Why has the government created this shadow military? Is this a phenomenon of our current regime, or past regimes as well? This smacks of the sinister and shadowy School of the Americas, also run by "former Special Forces personnel" that trained the paramilitaries who propped up the bloody dictatorships of Central and South America that were so destructive and violent. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 12:52 PM (#1153623) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST,GWB Amos: Please, the word is "misunderestimation". Thanks, Georgie |
|
03 Apr 04 - 01:23 PM (#1153643) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Metchosin The British also have security firms working there, who also employ Canadians. One security worker from Vancouver Island was killed last week. He was working as a bodyguard for a group of engineers who were working on getting electrical power up and running. In my mind they all are all mercenaries, whether they are in the military or paramilitary. The bottom line is that they are doing it because of money, once you undrape them from their respective flags, some better paid than others. There are also a number of Canadians in the American military and when interviewed a while back, the reason they gave was that the pay and the perks were better than that offered in Canada. Most of them were First Nations. How many young kids would enlist in the armed forces if there were opportunities for paid education and advancement provided by other means? You just have to look at the demographics. You won't find much youthful cannon fodder being provided by the financially upwardly mobile middle class. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM (#1153649) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Deckman Can anyone please point me toward some documentation regarding this? Thanks, Bob |
|
03 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM (#1153656) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Charley Noble Bob- The four who were ambushed and killed last Wednesday in Fallujah worked for Blackwater Security Consulting, headquartered in Moyock, NC. Blackwater is one of over 20 firms providing private security services. Charley Noble |
|
03 Apr 04 - 01:41 PM (#1153658) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Alice They provided security for food delivery. "A Blackwater spokesman said the men were guarding a convoy on its way to deliver food to troops..." Washington Post article, Slain Contractors Were in Iraq Working Security Detail "Blackwater, security experts said, is among the most professional of the dozens of multinational security firms in Iraq, most of them there to protect U.S. government employees, private firms, Iraqi facilities and oil pipelines." What do you expect them to do, let the reconstruction, food, water, negotiations, etc. go without protection? I have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning, but now that our National Guard and Army Reserve (who are called bullet magnets because they are so vulnerable) are in combat, whatever expert security aid they can get I think they should have. The whole thing is a mess, but these veterans were there to provide security. The nineteen and twenty year old kids who are there without the experience these older veterans have need all the help they can get. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 01:44 PM (#1153660) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: McGrath of Harlow Wouldn't they be categorised as "illegal combatants", if such a category had any legal meaning outside the imagination of the White Houise's legal spin doctors? |
|
03 Apr 04 - 01:48 PM (#1153662) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: artbrooks These individuals are no more mercenaries than is the guy who rattles door knobs in office buildings at night. Or, if they are, than so is everyone else who provides a service for a fee. Working as a guard for a company that is repairing damaged infrastructure is hardly the same thing as being a member of an organized armed force that is conducting offensive military operations, such as what occurred in Rhodesia 30-odd years ago. There are lots of articles out there, this one is about two guards (neither US citizens) who were killed last week. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 03:08 PM (#1153698) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Don Firth A couple of months ago I ran into several articles on private mercenary armies around the world, many of which are based in the United States. I printed a couple of them off along with their internet addresses, but I can't find them right now. I'll keep looking and post them if I find them. In any case, there's plenty to be found out there. Here's some background: Clicky #1 and Clicky #2. Need to hire an army? Want to join a private army (assuming you have the required military background)? Try Military Professional Resources, Incorporated. And here Clicky #3 is some more background information that'll really warm your heart. Don Firth |
|
03 Apr 04 - 04:59 PM (#1153729) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: artbrooks Interesting articles. I expect, like most media presentations, there are at least a few grains of fact in there. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 06:20 PM (#1153779) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Gareth Eeeeerrrr ! What illegality ???? Gareth |
|
03 Apr 04 - 06:58 PM (#1153804) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Strick Oddly enough the Guardian thinks the Brits are better at this than us "Yank". It is a trend started in earnest when US forces were downsized in the 90s to get the peace dividend. Clinton couldn't field enough troops to do the job in the Balkans (see the Guardian link below) and the US never had enough troops to occupy Iraq. No miscalculation, it was known this was going to be necessary from the beginning. The privatisation of war -- The Guardian "It is a trend that has been growing worldwide since the end of the cold war, a booming business which entails replacing soldiers wherever possible with highly paid civilians and hired guns not subject to standard military disciplinary procedures. "The biggest US military base built since Vietnam, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, was constructed and continues to be serviced by private contractors. At Tuzla in northern Bosnia, headquarters for US peacekeepers, everything that can be farmed out to private businesses has been. The bill so far runs to more than $5bn. The contracts include those to the US company ITT, which supplies the armed guards, overwhelmingly US private citizens, at US installations... "The surge in the use of private companies should not be confused with the traditional use of mercenaries in armed conflicts. The use of mercenaries is outlawed by the Geneva conventions, but no one is accusing the Pentagon, while awarding more than 3,000 contracts to private companies over the past decade, of violating the laws of war." Let's see, "past decade". That goes back before January of 2001, doesn't it? Halliburton got $1bn (from sole source contract, of course) of what was spent in the Balkans starting in 1995. Google "Halliburton Bosnia Clinton", you'll get some interesting results from authoritative sources. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 08:54 PM (#1153852) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Shanghaiceltic It is a fact that the US and British armies are stretched thin now. So the two governments are more or less forced to hire private security companies to take on jobs where personel protection is required. I do not think these are to be confused with the term 'mercenary' In the normal use of this word it means paying someone to fight for you. These are not (so far as we know) being used as front line troops. Yes they do have military training but then you do not want someone guarding you who has no idea of how to use a weapon or has no idea of how to handle potential threat situations. There are security companies who take on the work of clearing land mines yet we never here them condemned. They too would use people with military training, albeit very specialist. I would be more alarmed by the term 'civilian military advisors' such as those who were used in the Vietnam war. A E Houseman wrote a good peice on Mercernaries; Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth;s foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling And took their wages and are dead. Their shoulders held the sky suspended; They stood, and earth's foundations stay; What God abandoned, these defended, And saved the sum of things for pay. Still it does not get us away from the fact that these people are only required because our Governments stuffed up. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 09:23 PM (#1153861) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Strick It's even more simple than that. A good many of the jobs historically done by people within the military are now done by civilian contractors. In any modern army only 10% of the troops actually fight. Governments are off loading the non-combat jobs whereever they can to keep their permanent military establishments smaller. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 09:25 PM (#1153863) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Amos Man, that guy could craft a line. Thanks, SC. I think this is a wicked trend somehow. It is understandable under the economic pressures. It is not coherent witht he traditional statist model of nations -- in one sense the only difference between a security guard with military training and a soldier is that one is required to hold his ground by law, and the other can quit anytime. A |
|
03 Apr 04 - 10:41 PM (#1153893) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Rapparee I don't give a tinker's damn if they were convicted serial killers -- you DON'T mutilate bodies, you DON'T drag them through town! Yes, I know it's done. It has been done for a very, very long time. That doesn't make it either moral OR ethical. Kill someone in battle, kill someone by sniping or ambush -- that's the risks you take in combat. And if you are in a zone of active combat, such as Iraq, it's possible you will be wounded or killed. Beyond that, to me, is beyond the Pale. Were I there, I know what I would do, my individual actions. Years back, during the 'Nam Time, I was called a mercenary. I quoted Houseman back. |
|
03 Apr 04 - 11:26 PM (#1153908) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST,JoeMcG The assumption is that the mercenary does for pay what the soldier does out of patriotism. If both are doing good, then the mercenary accrues no merit before God (or good karma if you prefer) while the soldier accrues merit. If both are doing bad, then then both lose merit because the deeds are inherently wrong regardless of the motivation. "Yes I killed all those innocent children to save my country". "Yes I killed all those innocent children to put bread on my table." Hmmm. Seems to me like people that dislike mercenaries probably also dislike profit making institutions. Quit being silly. You hire mercaneries either becasue your own soldiers can't do the job or you don't have enough of them. Do you honestly think that mercenaries are any different than police? You pay them both a salary to do a job. Their own motives for doing the job are exactly that, their motives not their employers. |
|
04 Apr 04 - 04:52 AM (#1153983) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: dianavan Mercenaries? I thought it was against the law to contract killers. Of course if you're a Texas oilman, its probably part of your heritage. d |
|
04 Apr 04 - 05:02 AM (#1153986) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Keith A of Hertford Killers? They just looked like victims in the pictures I saw. Keith. |
|
04 Apr 04 - 05:58 AM (#1154021) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: dianavan If they were mercenaries they were not innocent victims. Victims, perhaps but innocent...? Maybe they were just security guards that couldn't get a job at WalMart. d |
|
04 Apr 04 - 01:39 PM (#1154213) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST "The surge in the use of private companies should not be confused with the traditional use of mercenaries in armed conflicts." Why? I mean, here is the Merriam Webster definition of mercenary: Main Entry: 1mer·ce·nary Pronunciation: 'm&r-s&n-"er-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages -- more at MERCY : one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service. And the Britannica's definition is even better: mercenary hired professional soldier who fights for any state or nation without regard to political interests or issues. From the earliest days of organized warfare until the development of political standing armies in the mid-17th century, governments frequently supplemented their military forces with mercenaries. These soldiers are being paid by the US government as part of the US military forces in Iraq, yet are not part of the official military. They are serving the highest bidder in a foreign country. So how are these soldiers not mercenaries? As to the argument that using mercenaries for "security", I have no idea what else they are doing in Iraq, but going by the way their bodies were desecrated, I'd say the Iraqis who did it may not view them as being all that innocent and neutral. Usually those sorts of acts are committed when the victims of the desecration are greatly reviled for their own perceived atrocities by those who commit the acts. It is quite possible there are atrocities being committed by both the private and official military forces in Iraq, isn't it, and that the Iraqis in Fallujah have targeted the mercenaries now, rather than the soldiers, who have pulled back to their bases for the most part. |
|
04 Apr 04 - 01:43 PM (#1154216) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST A quick Google resulted in this information on mercenaries and the Geneva Convention: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status [p.571] Article 47 -- Mercenaries [p.572] General remarks 1789 The problem of mercenaries was first raised at the United Nations in1961 in connection with the Katangese secession. (1) Later on, in 1964, the Congolese government itself recruited mercenaries to suppress an insurrection. When they were subsequently instructed to lay down their arms, most of them refused to do so and openly rebelled against the government (1967). The latter then called upon the Security Council, as well as the Organization of African Unity (OAU), to which it had already appealed in 1964. The Security Council (2) and the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the OAU requested States to prevent the recruitment of mercenaries in their territory for the purpose of overthrowing the governments of foreign States. The epilogue to this unhappy affair took place in Rwanda, where the mercenaries eventually sought refuge. They were repatriated with the help of the ICRC, on condition that they undertook not to return to the African continent. (3) 1790 Since then, there has scarcely been any conflict involving military operations in which the presence of mercenaries has notplayed a part in one way or another. Nevertheless, since 1968 the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a firm position stating that the practice of employing mercenaries against national liberation movements is a criminal act, (4) and the mercenaries themselves are criminals. In 1977 it was once more the Security Council which adopted, by consensus, a resolution condemning the recruitment of mercenaries with the objective to overthrow governments of Member States of the United Nations. (5) Also in 1977 the Council of Ministers of the OAU adopted a Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa at its 29th session in Libreville. (6) Based partly, as regards the definition of the term "mercenarism" as such, on previous [p.573] drafts, (7) and, with the exception of the problem of payment, on the definition of the term "mercenary" given in the present Article 47 , this Convention was a response to the concern of those who see the text of the Protocol as paving "the way for the conclusion of more stringent regional instruments", (8) on the assumption that Article 47 was only "the first, and that other more satisfactory international texts would follow". (9) In fact, this OAU Convention of 1977 was an attempt to respond to the wishes of some delegations who had participated in the Diplomatic Conference, wishes which could not be met by the demands of the inevitable compromise. It condemns the mercenarism as such, and not only the mercenary himself (Article 1 , paragraph 2). It contains a pure and simple prohibition on according a mercenary the status of combatant and prisoner of war (Article 3 ). Finally, the definition of the term "mercenary" diverges from that of the Protocol on one point, as stated above. (10) At the time of writing, a draft of an "international Convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries" is being formulated within the United Nations. (11) |
|
04 Apr 04 - 06:21 PM (#1154373) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Strick Gee, this is getting confusing. Mercenaries = Roland the headless Thompson gunner, people who engage in combat missions for the highest bidder. Security forces = bodyguards and those pot-bellied guys who carry fake badges and unloaded guns at the mall. I suspect we're not talking the same thing here. Civilian contractors fall in the later group or something even less military looking. Remember most military jobs are just like their civilian counterparts. Running a cafeteria or keeping the local area network up just doesn't require that much bootcamp and camoflage to do. Hence, hiring civilians. |
|
04 Apr 04 - 06:34 PM (#1154379) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST Well Strick, you are right about the stereotypes, I'm just not so sure one needs Special Forces training to run a cafeteria. |
|
04 Apr 04 - 06:47 PM (#1154388) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Strick But if I could get someone with special forces training to guard my people and offer advice on how to keep them safe, I'd hire them. Funny thing is, I might be better off with someone who has more military police experience. |
|
04 Apr 04 - 06:49 PM (#1154390) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Bill Hahn//\\ It may well be that if we had kept the "draft" we would have had ---as historically we had---citizen soldiers. That might also have caused more protest than we have seen. Think Viet Nam. I doubt people can feel as strongly when there are "hired guns" or "hired help" (if you will). It becomes a corporate thing and divorced from our visceral feelings about our actions and our morality. Bill Hahn |
|
04 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM (#1154423) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: DougR Boy, some of you folks get so riled up over nothing. No, McGrath, they are not categorized as mercinaries, they are categorized as contract workers. No big deal. DougR |
|
04 Apr 04 - 07:47 PM (#1154441) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST Of course they aren't categorized as mercenaries, because then their presence in Iraq or anywhere else would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. That is precisely why they are called "contract workers" or "private security". Don't take all of us for idiots, please. |
|
04 Apr 04 - 09:35 PM (#1154475) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Strick "It may well be that if we had kept the "draft" we would have had ---as historically we had---citizen soldiers." Given that the general population hated it almost as much as the military (they're rather have longer term volunteers than reluctant short term draftees any day), the draft as implemented during Viet Nam was a terrible idea. My firm is working on economic redevelopment projects in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Our people get hazard pay and we hire military civilian contractors to protect them because Coalition Forces aren't able to protect them all the time. As far as I know that's all these people were up to. You guys are obviously thinking something different from the reality we know. Shai Dorsai! |
|
04 Apr 04 - 11:13 PM (#1154526) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: toadfrog I think there are some very serious problems with having private firms doing stuff that soldiers normally do, and among them is the secrecy and lack of accountability, and there are possibilities for abuse. But using inflammatory words like "mercenary" is not a good substitute for thinking. On its face, there is nothing particularly immoral about guarding food convoys, or government officials for that matter, which Blackwater also does, and I see nothing whatsoever immoral about taking money for doing it. For people who ask where they can get information, today's New York Times covered the matter in considerable detail. |
|
05 Apr 04 - 12:52 AM (#1154558) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: dianavan Bill H. said, "I doubt people can feel as strongly when there are "hired guns" or "hired help" (if you will). It becomes a corporate thing and divorced from our visceral feelings about our actions and our morality." Exactly! I don't care if they are hired by a contract workers or not, they are not there under military command and how can we be sure they are neutral? Nothing about getting paid makes you neutral. What happens if they shoot someone or commit rape or any other crime? To whom do they answer? Why are they there anyway? Is this past practice or is it still another way Bush is spending your tax dollars to wage war. If you have a population unwilling to enlist, just hire someone to do the job. He's no different than any other dictator. I hope Bush is tried for war crimes! d |
|
05 Apr 04 - 03:20 AM (#1154598) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST There are some hard faced bastards posting to this thread, they make these men about whom they seem to know FUCK all, sound like baby killing murderers who got what they deserved. They are there to provide security to those trying to rebuild a ruined country, who trashed it is now irrelevent, it needs to be done. No different to those who carry guns while driving around any city in armoured cars carrying YOUR money. Sanctimonious bastards. |
|
05 Apr 04 - 05:50 AM (#1154672) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Teribus GUEST 04 Apr 04 - 06:34 PM "Well Strick, you are right about the stereotypes, I'm just not so sure one needs Special Forces training to run a cafeteria." I can think of a bar in HMS Neptune (RN Submarine Base, Faslane) where such training might be considered, if not essential, as coming in damn handy. Generally ex-military specialist personnel find a whole variety of jobs where their skills are required to provide security. The companies they work through are licenced and vetted. Within my own industry currently some are employed onboard vessels and construction barges off the coast of west Africa, to provide security against pirates. Same firm provides armed security onboard vessels carrying nuclear cargoes. |
|
05 Apr 04 - 08:49 AM (#1154778) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST There is a long history of abuses by American mercenaries which have included political assassinations amongst other things, and most recently in Central and South America. I'd greatly appreciate a link to the NY Times articles about the private contractors, if that is possible. |
|
05 Apr 04 - 08:58 AM (#1154784) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: artbrooks Here is a link to the NY Times article, GUEST, although you may have to be a member to read it. Care to validate your statements regarding American mercenaries in Central and South America? |
|
05 Apr 04 - 10:39 AM (#1154856) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST,Charmion at work Descended as I am from a Swiss mercenary who was serving in the French army, with his son, while his brother was in the (enemy) British army, I find the reasoning of many contributors to this thread downright odd. In pre-modern Europe, mercenaries (like my ancestors) were the surplus young men of poor countries with little agricultural land, often rented out by their own community leaders or clan elders. The practice persists to this day in the British army with the Gurkhas, and you don't have to examine the pattern of 19th- and 20th-century Scottish and Irish recruitment into the British army too closely to see a strong resemblance to the traditional mercenary pattern. Today's mercenaries are also surplus young men with skills and experience they can't market anywhere else for such good money, so they take it while they can get it. They're still soldiering, but without the pension plan and disability insurance typical of first-world armies in modern times. |
|
05 Apr 04 - 04:02 PM (#1155124) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST,petr one of the problems with farming so much of this work to private companies, is that sometimes they might just pack up and go home, like a number of SOuth Korean workers did last fall, when some Korean contractors were killed. something they would not be able to do if they were in the army. |
|
05 Apr 04 - 07:36 PM (#1155262) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST Thanks for the link artbrooks. So, to return the favor, here is a link to an article from 1998, from the Dallas Morning News, which explains some of it. Paul Wellstone had gone on a fact finding trip to South America not long before he was killed. http://www.colombiasupport.net/199808/0898covert.html The two hot spots these days are Columbia and Venezuela. You can also find information on US covert operations in Latin America here: Resource Center for the Americas There is a good article on it here: Training Human Rights Violators Here is another: Outsourcing Human Rights Violations |
|
05 Apr 04 - 07:46 PM (#1155277) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Gareth Dear oh dear ! GUEST,Charmion at work Your post ignores the excellent wotk done by the South Welsh Longbow men at Agincourt and elswhere. And all for 4 pence at day ! Hmmmmmm ! Methinks there is a song here somewhere. Gareth |
|
05 Apr 04 - 08:11 PM (#1155290) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: artbrooks Interesting links, GUEST, if mostly rather old. Please point me at the validation of US "mercenaries" being involved in political assassinations that you mentioned, since I cannot seem to be able to find it in in any of these articles. |
|
06 Apr 04 - 12:01 AM (#1155360) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: dianavan Artbrooks, Gee, how much more info do you need? Outsourcing is definitely bad news any way you slice it. Thanks for the clicky, Guest. Contractors have been hiring sub-contractors for a long time to avoid proscetion for shoddy workmanship. Thats why the leaky-condo mess in Vancouver is unresolved. Nobody will take any responsibility for the leaks and its all legal. Looks like dem Republicans know how to run the U.S. like a business, after all. Outsource everything and when the shit hits the fan, change your name to avoid liability. Bush is just another numbered company. Time for a general worker's strike, I'd say. |
|
06 Apr 04 - 09:03 AM (#1155608) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Strick "Gee, how much more info do you need?" Something pertinent to the conversation on Iraq? "Looks like dem Republicans know how to run the U.S. like a business, after all." Then how come the articles spend so much time talking about Clinton and what his administration did? Much of this comes from his decision to restructure the military so that we could hire what we need from civilian sources rather than keep a larger permanent military establishment. It's the only way we could get the peace dividend and I'm not sure it's totally a bad idea if we're talking about what are basicially civilian-type jobs the military needs done. If you don't agree, that's OK, just remember where the system came from. |
|
06 Apr 04 - 10:20 AM (#1155665) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: McGrath of Harlow "...they are not categorized as mercenaries, they are categorized as contract workers." But all mercenaries are contract workers. That's like saying "This can't be categorized as a banana, it has to be categorized as a fruit." It all depends what sort of work they are contracted to do - and who is doing the categorizing, of course. Whether someone employed to fight is a mercenary, a volunteer, or a conscript, that in itself should make no difference to the way they are treated. That's why the invention of the term "illegal combatant", with a reduced right to humane and civilised treatmnent when captured, is a step backwards. If a combatant is alleged to have done something illegal, such as massacre civilians or torture prisoners, it doesn't make any difference what kind of combatant they are - but dealing with that is a matter for an appropriate court of law, not for the people holding them captive. |
|
06 Apr 04 - 01:35 PM (#1155876) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: InOBU To the question of mercinary or security guard... the difference is the security guard on the armored car is in his own damn country, you send a hired gun into a foriegn land, it is a mercinary, just like when you pass a serries of laws which abridge American freedom it is NOT a patriot act, or when soldiers attack soldiers in an occupied nation they are not terrorists... lets revive George Orwell... don't reinvent the language to put a happy face on evil. Fact is Blackwater also sent Chilean mercs in, saying it was because they spoke a language not used in the region, well, ain't that interesting, it wasn't because the CIA got caught teaching Chilean secret service agants (where these "contract workers" were hired from) methods of torture. Well, damn me, I suppose they are contract workers in the same way certain "families" in the US put out a contract on folks who get in the way of their nepharious business ventures. Yes I feel sorry for them and their families... I feel agony for the children we killed in reprisal the next day... and I have a great idea about how to honnor their memories... get the hell out of Iraq. Cheers Larry |
|
06 Apr 04 - 03:54 PM (#1155974) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Thomas the Rhymer The Washington Post... 'Dana Priest' "...The Coalitional Provision Authority has awarded six contracts totalling 58 million for security, all but one on a "no bid" basis... The contractors have no common standard for training, weapons, appearance, or tactics. Uniformed American troups, by contrast, operate under strict command and tight rules governing the use of deadly force, and are accountable to combat commanders and to military law for their treatment of civilians. For months, the presence of security firms has been hard to ignore. Their large four-wheel drive vehicles whiz by highways, traveling at speeds well over 100 miles per hour to discourage potential assasins from killing them..." |
|
06 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM (#1156010) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Strick "Their large four-wheel drive vehicles whiz by highways, traveling at speeds well over 100 miles per hour to discourage potential assasins from killing them..." Yep, that clearly demonstrates that they're mercenaries. Trying to avoid getting anyone killed, very reckless of them. |
|
06 Apr 04 - 07:13 PM (#1156111) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: McGrath of Harlow ",,,traveling at speeds well over 100 miles per hour ..." Presumably also to discorage any speedcops from arresting them? |
|
06 Apr 04 - 08:09 PM (#1156154) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: dianavan 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...? |
|
06 Apr 04 - 10:32 PM (#1156223) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST 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. |
|
07 Apr 04 - 02:58 PM (#1156822) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Donuel http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushtugs.jpg http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/aas0.gif |
|
07 Apr 04 - 02:59 PM (#1156823) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Donuel correction... http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushthugs.jpg |
|
07 Apr 04 - 07:31 PM (#1157027) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: Gareth 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 |
|
07 Apr 04 - 07:41 PM (#1157037) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: GUEST,Hrothgar in Canberra 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. |
|
07 Apr 04 - 08:03 PM (#1157056) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: dianavan 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. |
|
07 Apr 04 - 08:14 PM (#1157068) Subject: RE: BS: 'Private Contractors'? I think not From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
