Privitization of warfare... what do you expect?
Why try to get congress to authorize military action when you can go to the private sector and skirt around any sort of democratic check in the system?
It's the free market at its finest.
2007-10-03 16:40:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
This is the new inevitable face of warfare. It has been privatised and the actual combat outsourced, in the same way that governments always look for cheaper and more effective ways of doing things.
The fact is that when a Private Military Company like Blackwater is involved the actual cost (forget what the individuals get paid) of providing boots on the ground is far less than sending or deploying the military. They are also often more efficient and have less politcal constraint / restraint so are atually more effective.
You do make a comment however about Blackwater which may not be accurate. yopu describe them as slaughtering people and posting the results on You Tube.
Firstly there are dozens of PMC's out there and probably only about 4 of them are legitimate and employ professionals. One of those is Blackwater and frankly the videos you refer to are unlikely to have come from their people as they tend to be ex special forces and highly discreet.
The other dozens of PMC's are recruiting all kinds of misfits from body building night club doormen who have no clue about military discipline or skills, through to social misfits and misguided adventurers. It is likely that some of these muppets would be the type to post on You Tube.
Finally just because you see something on You Tube doesnt make it real. The whole point of You Tube is to make everyone into a film maker and you dont belive everything you see at the movies do you?
2007-10-03 16:47:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I am not surprised that there are more mercenaries in Iraq than soldiers, but I am totally surprised over the attitudes of the people posting here. I don't think they understand the loss of their freedoms involved in situations like this, or how this loss will affect their futures.
The creator of Blackwater is a huge Bush contributor, so you might say that at least some of the money spent is being returned to the president. It doesn't help the taxpayer much and you and I are the ones footing the bill for this fiasco. And Blackwater is just one of the companies involved, some of whom the Justice Department is investigating at this time for fraud and misuse of government money.
When you hire companies to fight in a war, you lose oversight, you lose control, you lose money, and inevitably, you lose wars. These hired guns are better equipped than our soldiers and we all know the attitude toward providing proper armored equipment for our military. As Rumsfeld said, "You fight a war with what you have," and what they had was old pieces of steel picked up in junkyards to reinforce their Humvees.
Bush is like a child playing soldier, moving his toys here and there on a mock battlefield, playing his games, establishing his secret prisons and his habit of sending prisoners for "rendition" to rogue countries for torture. There is a cruel streak to this unintelligent man who has singlehandedly created chaos in the Middle East that will take years to untangle and cost many lives, both Arab and American.
Clinton's Army was pared down, but capable. They were used by George Bush to invade Afghanistan, win the battles, but forced to leave victory behind to chase the Bush dream of defeating Saddam and winning the oilfields. These efforts were cheered by a radical bunch of Americans who interpret Revelation as a ticket to kill Arabs and cause the Second Coming. What they did not understand is that, by invading a rather harmless country like Iraq, they fueled the fire of Arab resentment and gave even more power to Iran. Thus, this Crusade has further endangered Israel and created a stronger Al Queda.
Bush now has his oilfields and is engaged in a struggle to hang onto them. He will leave the next president with a quagmire of death and destruction in Iraq, the ruination of many thousands of lives, the problem of bringing our troops home to the economic woes of our own country. What we don't need is a contingent of brutal, barely trained fools bashing in Iraqi heads, raping their women, killing their children, and giggling over their exploits, with no way to control them, and forced to pay them far more than we pay our military.
You sure aren't "Supporting the Troops" if you treat them like inept little boys and send highly paid "real soldiers" to do their jobs.
2007-10-05 15:45:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Me, Too 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
"bypass the greenback Bush" implies plenty. 5x greater does besides. The question is valid in itself....... however the stupid Bush element negates it. Did you have subject concerns with Blackwater formerly you observed it on television? Do you have wisdom of government contracting at many greater stages than inner maximum protection? we are conversing approximately contracts interior the 1000's of hundreds of thousands. Democrats and republicans have a evaluate this. won't see that on television however. understand historic previous? Been in Iraq? No. able to be employed with the help of Blackwater? element is think of deeper. cease thinking political events..... think of why issues are as they're. examine some historic previous and your eyes will open. yet i visit backdown and agree on the easy element. they have upped bonuses for the "specific" troops. inspite of the shown fact that that's not adequate. that's greater easy than that. as quickly as upon a time even the chefs have been protection rigidity. If mandatory they'd p.c.. up a weapon so which you probably did not could spend funds to guard them. I say rehaul the pay scale and bonuses. no person (in line with probability some) if not protection rigidity enter a war zone. era.
2016-10-20 23:45:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've been dealing with the military and "contractors" for over 29 years, so nothing surprises me anymore. The real shame is the way our wounded troops are being treated once they get to the states. That and the way the wounded are rushed onto aircraft so they can die out of country, that way they wont be counted as killed in Iraq.
2007-10-04 01:19:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by austin j 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is estimated that this war will cost over a trillion dollars. Bush's goal has been to privatize every sector of the government. It costs the taxpayers more but his supporters can profit off of it. From the war in Iraq to FEMA's response to Katrina it's obvious that privatization has been a disaster.
2007-10-03 16:46:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Why would I be surprised that Reagan's deregulation and privatization scams have one disgusting consequence after another? Enron wasn't the beginning, and it certainly won't be the end before we get somebody far enough left to have the guts to explain why it looks and smells like excrement.
2007-10-03 16:50:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The bigger surprise is that taxpayer $ is paying over 1000.00 a night for hotel rooms for them Every Night and a minimum wage of 600.00 per day.
2007-10-03 16:37:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
No it doesn't surprise me one little bit. Britain uses them also. Their use has a number of advantages for any government: if there is a high casualty rate they don't get embarrassed because they are not their own soldiers; they can use them anywhere without awkward questions from their country's legislature, & they are easily replaced.
2007-10-03 16:38:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Graham C 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Hey go over there and do the job, so the "mercenaries" can go home and save the gov money. Until then SHUT UP!
2007-10-03 16:44:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by bored 2
·
0⤊
3⤋