Maybe he could score enough cash, and actually save some face by changing over to all mercenary system. Theres already 70,000 over there.
2007-05-11 04:21:29 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When you factor all the costs, it's a good idea. Just hire contractors to provide services which include ... providing security for geo-specific items (roads...)
Though I know it's a rhetorical thing.
2007-05-11 04:32:32 · answer #1 · answered by Wonka 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. He couldn't save the face we have already lost in the world community. It would be adding insult to injury to not only prolong a war of aggression, but also to admit that even our troops are unwilling to remain there since they are not paid anywhere near as much as the mercenaries. The only solution to the mess he has made is to redeploy our troops the hell outta there.
2007-05-11 11:39:42 · answer #2 · answered by RE 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first rule about mercenaries, is that you don't talk about the mercenaries.
Want to know why there is no draft? That is why. They just hire more mercs and stick the public with the bill.
2007-05-11 11:23:16 · answer #3 · answered by truthspeaker10 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Our government has made it illegal to hire Mercenaries. While I still wouldn't be for it, I would be willing to bet that the American public would be more supportive of the war if it were fought by a group akin to the French Foreign Legion.
2007-05-11 11:25:31 · answer #4 · answered by mark 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Guys, these contractors you keep calling 'mercenaries'...that's an incorrect term. If they were hired by the Iraqi government, then yes, they would be mercenaries...
2007-05-11 11:31:41 · answer #5 · answered by gregpasq 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You do realize that they cost over $200,000 each to contract, right?
2007-05-11 11:24:14 · answer #6 · answered by Chris 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
BUSH SUX MONKEY BUTT!
2007-05-11 11:22:33 · answer #7 · answered by sunshinee<3 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋