kevbone Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the US has 145,000 troops in Iraq and there are 180,000 private contractors in Iraq? The problem is the contractors. Who is paying for them? You and me out of our taxes. The government awarded over 600 mil in contract to these private army’s like Blackwater……that 600 mil is coming right out of your taxes….. Privatize everything…… What will the foreign policy be when there are 300,000 private army contractors and only enough US army to guard the 500 mil dollar US embassy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 i can think of another imperial george who used large numbers of mercenary troops to prosecute a foreign war, guerilla-like in nature, that ultimately became so unpopular and expensive he was forced to abandon it, suffering a decline in his nation's power as a result...didn't he later go crazy as a shit house rat too? makes you wonder how W's later life will pan out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendershot Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I don't like it, but no one asked me. We are told this is "for our protection." The need for contractors stems from a lack of enrolements in the Armed Forces. You want the soldiers you have to do the work of a soldier and not logistical tasks such as food prep and support services. Oh but this prevents us from activating the draft, right? The main benefactor is KBR (Haliburton) and in some cases was the only contractor considered for bids. Oh yeah, and Haliburton moved their headquarters from the US to United Arab Emirates, hmmm,what are the advantages there? Less taxes, more legal immunity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 i can think of another imperial George who used large numbers of mercenary troops to prosecute a foreign war, guerilla-like in nature, that ultimately became so unpopular and expensive he was forced to abandon it, suffering a decline in his nation's power as a result...didn't he later go crazy as a shit house rat too? Who are you referring too? makes you wonder how W's later life will pan out... On a ranch with all his billionaire friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 king george III had a fun later life. excerpt from teh interwubs: "He also had the royal hereditary disease porphyria which had afflicted Mary Queen of Scots. She passed it to her son, King James I of England. Porphyria is caused by the insufficient production of hemoglobin. The symptoms are photosensitivity, strong abdominal pain, port wine colored urine and paralysis in the arms and legs. The interruption of nerve impulses to the brain causes the development of psychiatric symptoms. Finally, epileptic convulsions occur and the patient sinks into a coma. George III's first attack occurred in 1765, four years after his marriage to Queen Charlotte. From 1811 to the time of his death in 1820 he became progressively insane and blind. He spent his time in isolation, and was often kept in straight jackets and behind bars in his private apartments at Windsor Castle." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 turns out funny shit happens when cousins marry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Obviously the real advatage of mercernary forces working for the military is the ability to insulate yourself from responsibilitiy when shit goes bad, rather than the standard explanation of private contractors more able to provide specialized services. This logic breaks down though when you look at the fact that the average security contractor is making/charging the US govt more that it would cost to have the equivalent army officer in the same position . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted April 19, 2008 Author Share Posted April 19, 2008 Obviously the real advatage of mercernary forces working for the military is the ability to insulate yourself from responsibilitiy when shit goes bad, rather than the standard explanation of private contractors more able to provide specialized services. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 contractors do missions that are quite different than both conventional and non-conventional US military forces. Also, contractors do not have the same fire support or air support given to US military forces. This places them in a very precarious position it ever ambushed or attacked. This adds a very tangible level of stress to these men doing necessary tasks which are integral to nationbuilding in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 Obviously the real advatage of mercernary forces working for the military is the ability to insulate yourself from responsibilitiy when shit goes bad, rather than the standard explanation of private contractors more able to provide specialized services. Well said. ...but misinformed. One example. VIP protection; and integral part of nation building. US military does not really delve into this facet of security (well, not very much) they really cant. Without foreign dignitaries being able to travel about the emerging nation without the fear of emminent death, the hashing out of constitutions and laws and government structures would be impossible. One example... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 Without foreign dignitaries being able to travel about the emerging nation without the fear of emminent death, the hashing out of constitutions and laws and government structures would be impossible. Foreign dignitaries aren't necessary to build nations they are necessary to build colonies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 sure... taht is why we are training their police and military for autonomy. think a little please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 sure... taht is why we are training their police and military for autonomy. So we'll have an independent military and police to run our vassal state - lovely! think a little please. I love irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 (edited) sure... taht is why we are training their police and military for autonomy. think a little please. It's called outsourcing. It's cheaper. Way cheaper. Who cuts the police force's paychecks has nothing to do with national autonomy. One can hardly call Iraqi forces credible, anyway, considering their desertion rate, small number, poor performance against militias, corruption, and complete dependence on U.S. air power to accomplish even the smallest objectives. Edited April 20, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 hmmm... because that worked in all the coups in Africa. No reasone to think that it wouldn't work in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 (edited) "all the coups in Africa"??? That's a lot of supporting evidence. There are over 50 nations in the country of Africa. Still, it's been a great place to mine foreign policies from. Edited April 20, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 Jesus, if you are now already aware of at least a few examples, you are ill prepared for this discussion. Getting light outside... gotta run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 I'm pretty sure that no one here has the slightest idea of what you're trying to talk about, including you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 This adds a very tangible level of stress to these men doing necessary tasks which are integral to nationbuilding in Iraq. this might explain why they get paid so much more than the patriotic boys who signed up for the junior varsity program, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted April 20, 2008 Author Share Posted April 20, 2008 Also, contractors do not have the same fire support or air support given to US military forces. They are also not held accountable for there actions either....which is worse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 hmm... they are really not paid much, if anymore more. If you look at the cost of insurance and housing and life insurance ect. they are quite similar. $ on the barrel-head; yes. I have a lot more information about this topic than you would assume ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.