Amazon 7 #26 September 18, 2007 QuoteMercenary or soldier? They are both out to get the bad guys and that is what matters. I think there might just be a little bit of a profit motive for the mercenary/contractor.... I was offered a job in Iraq last week......$250,000 to go make computers work in a location that will go unnamed. Think they would let me have my own weapons or would I have to rely on some "contractors" to protect me? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #27 September 18, 2007 I meant to say no attacks, of signifigance, in the US. We can't prevent attacks in Europe.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #28 September 18, 2007 QuoteHistorically, what has happened to empires defended to a major extent by mercenaries? Bahhhh... Ignore history. What are the odds of it happening again....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #29 September 18, 2007 Quote You could say the same about the Watergate criminals. Dedication and training are great, but it is the task to which that dedication is applied that determines how worthy the individual, and whether "thug" or "hero" best describes them. The Watergate affair was a crime. Security contractors, by design, violate no laws. Major distinction there. As to worthiness, people who commit crimes to win elections are deserving of neither praise nor gratitude. People who risk their lives to protect our freedom to type back and forth about it are deserving of both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #30 September 18, 2007 Quote Quote In summary ...paid thugs. Highly dedicated and trained individuals that carry out the wishes of the CIC. Don't hate the player. Following orders is no defence, you may remember that being established at Nuremberg. If they're breaking the law then they don't deserve immunity and should be prosecuted, if they are operating within the law then they do not need immunity. You wouldn't think these were difficult concepts, would you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #31 September 18, 2007 Just for the record, a mercenary is purely without allegiance. Security contractors used by the US are without question loyal to the US. They are not in any way mercenarys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #32 September 18, 2007 QuoteI meant to say no attacks, of signifigance, in the US. We can't prevent attacks in Europe. If the war in Iraq is preventing attacks on the US by tying up and destroying Al Qaeda then it would equally prevent attacks in Europe.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #33 September 18, 2007 Quote If they're breaking the law then they don't deserve immunity and should be prosecuted, if they are operating within the law then they do not need immunity. As I stated before, they explicitely operate within the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #34 September 18, 2007 QuoteThese "paid thugs" and "paid thugs" from previous wars and generations made it possible for you to have the freedoms you have. A little gratitude might be in order. Really?!?!?! The ones my tax dollars trained so that they could quit and sell their skills to the highest bidder I owe my freedoms (or what is left of them) to that bunch of ...er, patriots?!?!? Oh, I really must hear more about this.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #35 September 18, 2007 QuoteQuote If they're breaking the law then they don't deserve immunity and should be prosecuted, if they are operating within the law then they do not need immunity. As I stated before, they explicitely operate within the law. "By design, these men are "above the law"." I await your explanation of how "above the law" is the same as "within the law". Please make it a good one.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #36 September 18, 2007 QuoteJust for the record, a mercenary is purely without allegiance. Security contractors used by the US are without question loyal to the US. They are not in any way mercenarys. US security contractors have hired thousands of Iraqis. How sure are you of their allegiance? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #37 September 18, 2007 Iraq is a war zone. The "Law" as you put it is not black and white. Most live by the Law of self preservation.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #38 September 18, 2007 >The Watergate affair was a crime. Only in retrospect. At the time, the president claimed he could not do illegal things: -------- FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal. NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal. FROST: By definition. NIXON: Exactly. -------- It was only afterwards that people decided it was illegal. We had a similar situation with the Contras, the Mujahideen and our support of Saddam Hussein - and we have a similar situation today. >Security contractors, by design, violate no laws. People who murder innocent civilians may not be violating any laws in your book. If that's the case, I am glad I don't read from the same book. >People who risk their lives to protect our freedom to type back and >forth about it are deserving of both. And people who harm our country by torturing and murdering innocent people are worthy of only disgust and (hopefully) jail time. I am amazed people are defending them. Is this how low we've sunk - that anything "our guys" do is acceptable, and anything that they do is criminal? If so, we've lost the war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #39 September 18, 2007 Quote "By design, these men are "above the law"." I await your explanation of how "above the law" is the same as "within the law". Please make it a good one. They are immune from prosecution under the law. Some would say they are "above the law". Its a figure of speech. By design, they operate within legal parameters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #40 September 18, 2007 Quote US security contractors have hired thousands of Iraqis. How sure are you of their allegiance? I'd bet my life on it. They do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #41 September 18, 2007 QuoteQuote "By design, these men are "above the law"." I await your explanation of how "above the law" is the same as "within the law". Please make it a good one. They are immune from prosecution under the law. Some would say they are "above the law". Its a figure of speech. By design, they operate within legal parameters. If they have been given immunity then by definition they are not bound by any legal parameters. Do you think it's a good idea to give contractors carte blanche to act however they want? If so why do the ROE exist for actual troops?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #42 September 18, 2007 >>US security contractors have hired thousands of Iraqis. How sure are you >>of their allegiance? >I'd bet my life on it. They do. Ironically, when these people, people we have hired to work with us (and who we have bet our lives on) try to flee to the US to escape the violence in Iraq, we reject them because they are security hazards - and leave them in refugee camps in Syria. That's how much we think of these people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #43 September 18, 2007 What? Hoe can we prevent attacks in Europe? We have not had an attack here because the CIA, FBI, and local law enforcement have made it very difficult for Al Queda, et. al. to have any success here. What happened in Spain and England just goes to show that the threat is real. They like an easy target. The US is no longer an easy target.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #44 September 18, 2007 QuoteQuote US security contractors have hired thousands of Iraqis. How sure are you of their allegiance? I'd bet my life on it. They do. So what happened to the $8.8bn in cash that disappeared? Or the 190,000 assault rifles? Or is rife corruption a sign of true allegiance?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #45 September 18, 2007 Quote People who murder innocent civilians may not be violating any laws in your book. If that's the case, I am glad I don't read from the same book. An explosion followed by a sustained contact of 20 minutes is not indicitive of interaction with innocent civilians. There is a harsh reality that accompanies armed conflicts. People are going to die. Sometimes, innocent bystanders, women, and children. Its a fact. If we, as Americans, cannot accept that in a given situation, we should do everything we can to get our guys out of there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #46 September 18, 2007 QuoteWhat? Hoe can we prevent attacks in Europe? We have not had an attack here because the CIA, FBI, and local law enforcement have made it very difficult for Al Queda, et. al. to have any success here. Quote Exactly the point! Lack of succesful terror attacks on US soil has to do with domestic security efforts, not what is happening in Iraq. I'm so glad you agree. So you'll be admitting that this statement "There has not been another attack since 9/11 so the mercanaries and soldiers must be doing some good over there." is irrelevant then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #47 September 18, 2007 Quote>>US security contractors have hired thousands of Iraqis. How sure are you >>of their allegiance? >I'd bet my life on it. They do. Ironically, when these people, people we have hired to work with us (and who we have bet our lives on) try to flee to the US to escape the violence in Iraq, we reject them because they are security hazards - and leave them in refugee camps in Syria. That's how much we think of these people. Very true and unfortunate. Militarily, we have been unbelievably successful in Iraq. Our failures have been matters of policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,080 #48 September 18, 2007 >An explosion followed by a sustained contact of 20 minutes is not >indicitive of interaction with innocent civilians. Facile justifications like that tend to lend credence to the theory that we are the bad guys. (Which should not be the case.) "There was a lot of fighting, and anyone in a city where there's fighting is an enemy." Yeah, sorry we killed your family. But they lived in Baghdad, so they were probably terrorists. US contractors have killed civilians. They have tortured innocent men to death. If you are OK with that, well - I am glad I do not share your values. >There is a harsh reality that accompanies armed conflicts. People >are going to die. Sometimes, innocent bystanders, women, and children. >Its a fact. Yes. When we do it accidentally, that's sad. When we do it intentionally, that is criminal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,564 #49 September 18, 2007 QuoteQuote People who murder innocent civilians may not be violating any laws in your book. If that's the case, I am glad I don't read from the same book. An explosion followed by a sustained contact of 20 minutes is not indicitive of interaction with innocent civilians. There is a harsh reality that accompanies armed conflicts. People are going to die. Sometimes, innocent bystanders, women, and children. Its a fact. If we, as Americans, cannot accept that in a given situation, we should do everything we can to get our guys out of there. Again, coalition forces are expected to be able to deal with those situations without breaking the ROE or international law. Why does the same expectation not apply to the "highly trained professionals"?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AWL71 0 #50 September 18, 2007 You miss the point. The security of European countries is up to them. Not the US. The war in Iraq is far from over. I bet all the people that Saddam and friends tortured and killed would have loved for the US soldiers to come sooner. Domestic Security and the War effort has made our country safer.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
JohnnyD 0 #47 September 18, 2007 Quote>>US security contractors have hired thousands of Iraqis. How sure are you >>of their allegiance? >I'd bet my life on it. They do. Ironically, when these people, people we have hired to work with us (and who we have bet our lives on) try to flee to the US to escape the violence in Iraq, we reject them because they are security hazards - and leave them in refugee camps in Syria. That's how much we think of these people. Very true and unfortunate. Militarily, we have been unbelievably successful in Iraq. Our failures have been matters of policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #48 September 18, 2007 >An explosion followed by a sustained contact of 20 minutes is not >indicitive of interaction with innocent civilians. Facile justifications like that tend to lend credence to the theory that we are the bad guys. (Which should not be the case.) "There was a lot of fighting, and anyone in a city where there's fighting is an enemy." Yeah, sorry we killed your family. But they lived in Baghdad, so they were probably terrorists. US contractors have killed civilians. They have tortured innocent men to death. If you are OK with that, well - I am glad I do not share your values. >There is a harsh reality that accompanies armed conflicts. People >are going to die. Sometimes, innocent bystanders, women, and children. >Its a fact. Yes. When we do it accidentally, that's sad. When we do it intentionally, that is criminal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #49 September 18, 2007 QuoteQuote People who murder innocent civilians may not be violating any laws in your book. If that's the case, I am glad I don't read from the same book. An explosion followed by a sustained contact of 20 minutes is not indicitive of interaction with innocent civilians. There is a harsh reality that accompanies armed conflicts. People are going to die. Sometimes, innocent bystanders, women, and children. Its a fact. If we, as Americans, cannot accept that in a given situation, we should do everything we can to get our guys out of there. Again, coalition forces are expected to be able to deal with those situations without breaking the ROE or international law. Why does the same expectation not apply to the "highly trained professionals"?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #50 September 18, 2007 You miss the point. The security of European countries is up to them. Not the US. The war in Iraq is far from over. I bet all the people that Saddam and friends tortured and killed would have loved for the US soldiers to come sooner. Domestic Security and the War effort has made our country safer.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
