Private Armys?

[angel_dark_demon_bright]

I think having a mercenary force on the payroll, who will willingly enter a foreign conflict is better than forcing your own military into a conflict which may not be any real concern on your part.
These are not a bunch of redneck thugs who will go wherever the money is waved. These are professional soldiers. Who have the training and work to get the job done as efficiently, effectivly(sp?), and quickly as possible. Unlike the american military these guys man to man actually give a shit if they suceed in the mission or not. The individual soldiers of, like the US army for example, they get paid whether or not the job gets done right. The mercenarys have more to lose by failure, Ergo they are more willing to work harder to get the job done.

Frankly I dont really care about what happens or who dies in other countries as long as it doesnt bother me.

[Nardol]

I think as long as corporate mercenary forces are not legally able to hire themselves out to private individuals or corporations for the purpose of private warfare, in much the way that the pinkerton detective agency was used by coal and steel companies to thwart legal union activities such as strikes, then, I don't think it's wrong. They should be restricted to security and similair undertakings.

As far as foriegn governments go, it is entirely illegal for an american citizen to join a foriegn army in any sense. A person more or less waived thier citizenship by doing so. To this end the law is succint and I don't believe there are too many loopholes. Not that money can't buy legislation. My grandfather was actually arrested by the FBI for trying to go to Spain to fight against Franco's fascist regime as a volunteer. To my knowledge however, americans who join Allied forces during WWI (most popularized was the french air force) were not in any way prosecuted for it.

Such groups have always existed and will always, not always here on our soil, or noticably so. After the Vietnam War a great number of american troops, having no other viable skills, and the army being downsized as it was, went to what was then Rhodesia (modern day Zhaire and parts of Rwanda) and fought as mercenaries not only killing other combatants but carrying out whatever ethnic cleansing the paying militant regimes had on thier agenda.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Since the US government no longer 'keeps figures' on civilian deaths, and obviously coporate hitmen don't keep track and send their numbers to news agencies, we can't directly say.

WE can't directly say? Oh no, YOU have already said it. You said they have killed more than 1,200 civilians when you answered the question, "Who has killed more civilians; the IRA or Blackwater USA?" To which you answered, "Blackwater USA." It was a loaded question, Sternn, and I caught you with your hand in the fucking cookie jar of "making shit up."

Provide me with the stats that they killed over 1,200 civilians. This conversation, in particular, is not about what you do and don't "buy," what you "believe," or what your "common sense" tells you. It's about what you can back up with statistics to show you're not making up information.

[CptSternn]

With Blackwater troops numbering over 20,000 and fighting right along side US troops who have killed 35,000+ and counting, it's safe to assume Blackwater has more than 1200+ civilian kills.

-They were in Abu Gahrib, and called out for torture
-A half dozen died in a chopper crash with a half dozen US soldiers
-They have been listed as recently as last week engaging in various fire fights in the country

To assume otherwise is quite ignorant.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by angel_dark_demon_bright

Frankly I dont really care about what happens or who dies in other countries as long as it doesnt bother me.

There in lies the problem. Thats the amercian attitude... Who cares if a man and his wife and kids half a world away are murdered by lads on the pentagon payroll, just as long as I don't have to see or hear about it, and it doesn't effect my life, I don't care

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Weren't you just bragging in another thread about your massive fraud and debts? Who are you to throw stones?

[angel_dark_demon_bright]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

There in lies the problem. Thats the amercian attitude... Who cares if a man and his wife and kids half a world away are murdered by lads on the pentagon payroll, just as long as I don't have to see or hear about it, and it doesn't effect my life, I don't care

What would you have me do? The way i see it the fate of these people was never really our concern. It seems to me that no matter what we do to try to win the pr war everyone only tends to hate us even more. If we pour billions into aid for feeding starving nigerians, that makes us condescending bastards. If we send troops to a war torn area to end the massacres that are taking place and keep the peace, we're imperialists. Yet if we sit by and let this happen, we are seen as an arrogant and selfish people. We've more to lose by helping other countries in trouble than by just sitting back and watching the fireworks.

Maybe if we let them kill eachother itd be alot easier to to win the pr war.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

[I][quote=CptSternn]With Blackwater troops numbering over 20,000 and fighting right along side US troops who have killed 35,000+ and counting, it's safe to assume Blackwater has more than 1200+ civilian kills.[/i]

So how did you get these numbers? They goverment dosen't keep track of number of kills. That is an over the to esimate. If you really look at the demographics the u.s. Air Force has done more killing in this was that the ground forces. If you even try to say anything about the wepons the Air Force uses you will be really, really wrong.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

With Blackwater troops numbering over 20,000 and fighting right along side US troops who have killed 35,000+ and counting, it's safe to assume Blackwater has more than 1200+ civilian kills.

-They were in Abu Gahrib, and called out for torture
-A half dozen died in a chopper crash with a half dozen US soldiers
-They have been listed as recently as last week engaging in various fire fights in the country

To assume otherwise is quite ignorant.

20,000 Blackwater troops? Wait, you think PMC means Blackwater? AHAHAHAHA! PMC stands for Private Military Contractor. Got news for ya, sport; Blackwater ain't that big of a company and they're not the only ones amongst the PMCs hired by the US, Iraqi, and Afghani governments.

Cite a news article that states Blackwater Employees were involved in Abu Gahrib. The only thing you've provided thus far that's even about Abu Gahrib is a Wikipedia article that states members of CACI may have been involved. CACI isn't Blackwater USA, btw. In case you didn't know. They're another PMC... err... Private Military Contractor (I keep forgetting that acronyms confuse you).

Bottomline, you have no figures or proof of any civilian casualties attributed to Blackwater USA. When asked to provide evidence, you "assume" shit. In other words, you made information up to benefit your own arguement.

[CptSternn]

PMC's including blackwater. When I say 'blackwater' it's taken as PMC, as most people don't know what PMC's are.

But if you want, check my previous posts that start with the clearinghouse of information on the subject.

There aren't 'official' numbers, but then, there aren't 'official' numbers for the civvys killed by US troops either, 'the US doesn't do bodycounts'.

[Binkie]

You need to say PMCs next time, as Blackwater is not the only security firm present in Iraq and does NOT account for 20,000 individuals there. Not that correcting yourself on that issue helps much anyways because we're only talking about Blackwater USA.

Difference between Blackwater USA and the US Military is that: there are figures that are verifiable to say that the US Military has been responsible for killing over 1,200 civilians (period... let alone in Iraq). For Blackwater there are none.

[Crom Crauch]

And the funniest thing about this entire thread is, in my opinion, the fact that people are protesting what is probably the second-oldest profession in the world. Of course... without the classical age equivalent to mercenaries, the Greeks would probably have lost against Persia. and, in a (slightly) more modern equivalent, the modern justice system probably would not exist... as the only thing that kept the Byzantine Emporer Justinian in his throne were two mercenary companies. Besides, PMCs can't shoot first, so... less hate on the mercenaries?

*edit* but then... that's just my opinion, so who really cares?

[Godslayer Jillian]

No, it's ok, you do have a point.
By the way, you'll see, when I grow up, I'm going to have my own private army. They'll be called Seraphs and my HQ is going to be on the moon. ANd everyone has to pay me a yearly fee of Snapples if they don't want to taste my wrath

[Crom Crauch]

Originally Posted by Xnguela

That's the point, though, isn't it? If your opinion was the same as everyone else's, what would make this discussion interesting?

yeah, true... I just tend to come off a little (okay, a lot) conservative... and did I mention the fact that some 30,000 civilians were killed by mercenaries to keep Justinian in power?

[Crom Crauch]

I usually do manage to have valid reasons for my arguments... though if there is statisical information, I get annoyed if the info is more then like... 3 years old.

*edit* but anyways... back to the topic... PMCs... I wanna build/join one.

[Nardol]

Statistics are so easily skewed I don't really believe them anymore.

[CptSternn]

It's always good to see a topic I started years ago pop-up on the news.

The stuff I said would happen, once again happens. It's also fun to go back through the old posts and see all the people who disagreed with me, and claimed issues like this would never happen.

Then again, the stuff I post is usually about bad things that will happen, so being right about it is not a real 'win' by any means.

Who watches US security firms in Iraq?

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070919...tjzdM29cCs0NUE

WASHINGTON - The fog of war keeps getting thicker. The Iraqi government's decision to temporarily ban the security company Blackwater USA after a fatal shooting of civilians in Baghdad reveals a growing web of rules governing weapons-bearing private contractors but few signs U.S. agencies are aggressively enforcing them.

Nearly a year after a law was passed holding contracted employees to the same code of justice as military personnel, the Bush administration has not published guidance on how military lawyers should do that, according to Peter Singer, a security industry expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

A Congressional Research Service report published in July said security contractors in Iraq operate under rules issued by the United States, Iraq and international entities such as the United Nations.

All have their limitations, however.

A court-martial of a private-sector employee likely would be challenged on constitutional grounds, the research service said, while Iraqi courts do not have the jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without U.S. permission.

"It is possible that some contractors may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq," the report said.

Blackwater and other private security firms long have been fixtures in Iraq, guarding U.S. officials and an international work force helping to rebuild the war-torn country.

Prior to the March 2003 invasion, however, U.S. officials paid little attention to how prevalent these security firms would be in combat zones and the difficulties their presence could cause, according to Steve Schooner, co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University.

"The real problem is when we went into Iraq none of this had been worked out," Schooner said. "We hadn't thought it through."

The result is dissatisfaction on multiple fronts that is tempered by the acknowledgment these hired hands have become an important part of the long-running effort to stabilize Iraq.

"This is what happens when government fails to act," Singer wrote on the Brookings Web site of the incident Sunday involving Blackwater.

Iraq's government said Tuesday it would review the status of all security firms working in Iraq to ensure each is complying with Iraqi laws.

But Iraqi government representatives also said they probably would not rescind Order No. 17, which was issued more than three years ago by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. The order gives American security companies immunity from Iraqi prosecution on issues arising from their contracts.

"We don't want to do so because we don't have the services they are providing for the diplomats and for the American Embassy here in Iraq," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told CNN.

Blackwater, based in Moyock, N.C., is one of three private security firms employed by the State Department to protect its personnel in Iraq. The two others, both of which are headquartered in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, are Dyncorp, based in Falls Church, Va., and Triple Canopy of Herndon, Va.

The State Department has provided little information on Sunday's incident, which began after a car bomb attack against an American convoy guarded by Blackwater employees turned into a firefight that left eight Iraqis dead.

The department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security is conducting an investigation with assistance from the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The Iraqis are conducting their own inquiry, although it seems unlikely the Iraqi government would revoke Blackwater's license and order the company's 1,000 personnel to leave the country.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said the guards acted "lawfully and appropriately" after being "violently attacked by armed insurgents."

In a separate development, a congressional committee is questioning how aggressively the State Department has looked into allegations that Blackwater illegally brought weapons into Iraq.

In a letter to Howard Krongard, the State Department inspector general, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Krongard impeded a Justice Department probe into claims that a "large private security contractor was smuggling weapons into Iraq."

Although the security company was not named in the letter, several senior administration officials confirmed it was Blackwater.

In an e-mailed response to the committee's charges, Krongard said Tuesday he made one of his "best investigators" available for the probe.

Tyrrell declined to comment.

For Democrats in Congress, the Blackwater shooting incident has reinvigorated an effort to pass additional regulations on how security contractors operate.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a longtime critic of Blackwater, is pushing legislation requiring the Pentagon and State Department to provide details about security contractors it has hired, including any disciplinary actions taken against them.

"I think we have to have some uniform rules, particularly when these security guys are walking around fully armed," Schakowsky said Tuesday. "Who are they accountable to?"

But that's not because there is a shortage of laws, according to Laura Dickinson, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who has studied the use of private contractors on the battlefield.

"There are plenty of laws that apply to them," said Dickinson, who is working on a book called "Outsourcing War and Peace."

The problem is enforcement, she said.

The Pentagon and State Department have their own contracting officers and separate systems for ensuring performance and accountability.

Dickinson said a single government office is needed to monitor contracts and keep Congress informed.

"I don't think there's real clarity about what the rules of the game are either," said Schakowsky, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. "It's a very murky area."

The International Peace Operations Association, a trade group that represents Blackwater and other companies doing business in Iraq, is not opposed to better oversight of the industry, according to Doug Brooks, the group's president.

That begins with the federal government having a deeper pool of experienced contracting officers who can properly monitor the work that's being done, he said.

"The companies try to operate within their contracts," Brooks said. "It's a problem when you can't get a hold of a contracting officer, or when the contracting officers don't understand how the contracts work."


So yeah, the problem I was on about back in April 2006 is now happening. As I asked then - who polices these mercs? Who are they accountable to? More importantly - when they indsicriminatly kill innocent men, women, and children - how does one go about getting justice for your lost loved ones?

All questions I posed two years ago...

[MaverickZero]

Whoa, wait a minute here... the so-called, best-of-the-best need someone better to hold their hands?

Something doesn't make sense here... Why are we sending in our brothers/sisters/uncles/aunts/fathers/mothers into battle, putting poorly trained individuals in armed combat.... When there are companies out there training troops better than our armies do?

This just doesn't make sense to me...

Back to the main point, who is pulling the strings on the mercs? Ok, sorry to sound cliche here... but it is reminicint of what happened in the Star Wars series, isn't it?

I mean, they take the clones help, in this instance the mercs, and then they turn around and gun down the troops they've been protecting.

I know its a stretch but really...

The Government can give orders to these mercs, and literally have no responsibility traced back to them, it falls on the company.

Wow, no wonder they hate North America.

[Drake Dun]

Blackwater is a very interesting phenomenon. I haven't considered the angles close enough to form a solid opinion on it yet, but I've seen enough to have one eyebrow up.

Referring to them as a "security" company is a joke. An employee of a security company has a can of pepper spray and a beer gut. These guys have their own production line of APCs, and I've seen footage of their boys shooting Iraqis with the same .50 rifles that the U.S. military uses. It's a fucking anti-materiel weapon. They kill light vehicles with it.

Blackwater is a mercenary organization, plain and simple. So the question is, is there a place for mercenaries in the world? Somebody raised the example of the Pinkertons, which may be appropos. The historical lesson we have from that illustrious organization is not a terribly comforting one.

Somebody said that you can't stop the development of groups like this without stomping on individual rights too. That may be so, but apparently you can stomp on individual rights but still have mercenaries. That's the current situation. I sure as hell can't own a Barrett M107. If you want to say that I should be able to, I might be ready to agree with you. In the meantime, something seems wrong with the idea that I can't, but professional killers can.

Drake

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Why is this even a post? Who didn't know that governments uses mercenaries? Is it shocking that 16th C. Spain or France would hire out Swiss mercs? Doubtful. Why is it any more shocking that modern governments use guns for hire to fill gaps in their lines during an unpopular war? Answer: it isn't.

This war is idiotic; people don't want to sign up for it, and that leaves a gap in recruitment. How to fill the gap? The answer is simple: Mercenaries.

Do I agree with it? Not really, but tell that to the folks that Coca-Cola killed in South America mid to late 20th C. (Dr. Strangelove, anyone?). There is a need, and someone is going to fill that need for money. Patriotism is an effete and stupid construct that isn't working to boost numbers, but currency still spends. Do the math, cause the government has. Hiring men with their own guns and armor is cheaper than ineffective recruitment programs, and we can most usually outbid the enemy. Homegrown mercs are a plus, cause if they violate the contract we know where to find their HQ.

Lawyers are scarier than men with guns anyway.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Oh, and Sternn misspelled the word "Armies" in the heading to this post. I don't like this regime any more than you, but this website has a fucking auto-spellcheck. Get it right next time.

[MaverickZero]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Hiring men with their own guns and armor is cheaper than ineffective recruitment programs

My point exactly, why not wage wars with these "elite" mercs instead of sending over sheer numbers of raging teens with guns?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Because drumming up popular support for a war involves touting how great we are for waging it. If we won't wage it ourselves, then there is obviously an ideological problem with the war. Paying mercs is sensible if thinking like a Utopian (using barbarians to destroy barbarians, ala Thomas More), but is counterintuitive when held up against our means of propagating the "war mentality".

A side effect of Nationalism, I suppose.

[Methadrine]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Oh, and Sternn misspelled the word "Armies" in the heading to this post. I don't like this regime any more than you, but this website has a fucking auto-spellcheck. Get it right next time.

Remove the extra L in the name of the person you quote in the signature before complaining on other persons spelling then...

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Balls!......! (ten characters, check.)