Can you imagine just for a second how funny it would be if you saw a US court using Sharia law
If this were a film plot it wouldn't be believable: A PMC run by a billionaire fundamentalist Christian causes the deaths of soldiers through negligence and then tries to get the case thrown out by arguing FOR Sharia Law, in a US federal court, post-9/11.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Can you imagine just for a second how funny it would be if you saw a US court using Sharia law
Like some grim comedy in bad taste.
too trueTurquoise wrote:
Privatized war... ain't it lovely?
when things are run for profit, corners are always cut.
name one business (non-charity) that is not run for profit?BN wrote:
when things are run for profit, corners are always cut.
Network Rail.usmarine2 wrote:
name one business (non-charity) that is not run for profit?BN wrote:
when things are run for profit, corners are always cut.
Network Rail is a British "not for dividend" company limited by guarantee whose principal asset is Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, a company limited by shares. Network Rail owns and operates the fixed infrastructure assets of the British railway system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
lolm3thod wrote:
Network Rail.usmarine2 wrote:
name one business (non-charity) that is not run for profit?BN wrote:
when things are run for profit, corners are always cut.
Network Rail is a British "not for dividend" company limited by guarantee whose principal asset is Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, a company limited by shares. Network Rail owns and operates the fixed infrastructure assets of the British railway system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
no need to make money when your debts are paid for by the gov. come on dude.
You digress young sir. You requested a not for profit organisation that operates within the private sector and i duly delivered. Now if you want to discuss the business operating model of Network rail then be my guest.usmarine2 wrote:
lolm3thod wrote:
Network Rail.usmarine2 wrote:
name one business (non-charity) that is not run for profit?
Network Rail is a British "not for dividend" company limited by guarantee whose principal asset is Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, a company limited by shares. Network Rail owns and operates the fixed infrastructure assets of the British railway system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
no need to make money when your debts are paid for by the gov. come on dude.
Last edited by m3thod (2008-06-21 17:34:44)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You know what i am saying. I know you do. Just stop for once.m3thod wrote:
You digress young sir. You requested a not for profit organisation that operates within the private sector and i duly delivered. Now if you want to question the business operating model of Network question then be my guest.
The question isn't weather they should make money, they're a fucking business, that's their function. The question is whether a for-profit business should be fighting our wars. Blackwater's concern isn't the safety of US troops, their concern goes no further than the last line of their spreadsheet.
Network rail is not for profit organisation and all it 'profits' are ploughed back into the rail infrastructure of the UK. No shareholders. Nothing. Is it right? If you were a Brit your answer would be an easy yes. All those train crashes we used to have was because of shoddy maintenance by Network Rails predecessors Rail Track who incidentally requested emergency funding from the Labour Government only to use it as dividend payments for its shareholders! The fucking cheek. Well that was the final nail in the coffin for them sons of bitches.usmarine2 wrote:
You know what i am saying. I know you do. Just stop for once.m3thod wrote:
You digress young sir. You requested a not for profit organisation that operates within the private sector and i duly delivered. Now if you want to question the business operating model of Network question then be my guest.
Anyway i can see how Network Rail operating model can be see as weird from a foreigners perspective. believe me Network Rail needs to operate under its current business model.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
well, private ships licensed to carry out warfare, helped win the American Revolution and the War of 1812. So who knows?Reciprocity wrote:
The question isn't weather they should make money, they're a fucking business, that's their function. The question is whether a for-profit business should be fighting our wars. Blackwater's concern isn't the safety of US troops, their concern goes no further than the last line of their spreadsheet.
Exactly.Reciprocity wrote:
The question isn't weather they should make money, they're a fucking business, that's their function. The question is whether a for-profit business should be fighting our wars. Blackwater's concern isn't the safety of US troops, their concern goes no further than the last line of their spreadsheet.
And the whole "businesses cut corners" thing is a particularly pitiful dodge. This is not a paper company it's a PMC. When they are negligent, people die. The same as a housing manufacturer who builds substandard homes or a car manufacturer that designs unsafe cars.
Blackwater should either follow the rules other companies are bound to or should be subject to the same consequences DoD/military personnel would be in similar situations. This lack of oversight is untenable.
A military pilot who is negligent in his or her duties can be subject to courts-martial, demotion, imprisonment, dishonorable discharge, etc. PMC pilots are subject to what? Reassignment stateside at most. That has to change.
Military laws are separate from civilian laws.Masques wrote:
A military pilot who is negligent in his or her duties can be subject to courts-martial, demotion, imprisonment, dishonorable discharge, etc. PMC pilots are subject to what? Reassignment stateside at most. That has to change.
Well, these assholes are running around with little or no regulation and oversight, while being paid 2 times more than your fellow marines, who are dying for their country, not for money.usmarine2 wrote:
They do it for money? Well we ALL do stuff for money. I don't care what they do, but to sue them for doing what the AF does everyday is lame is all I am saying.Braddock wrote:
Why are you so content to see private companies dodge and weave their way out of the same rules and restrictions that you or I would have to follow? It's not even an issue of patriotism, these guys do this for money not for flag and country and all that other stuff.usmarine2 wrote:
Well to sue a company for doing what the air force does everyday is pretty gay.
I just cannot believe you sometimes usmarine. This is just... fucking unbelievable. How you can be like this in this thread.
ps. - sometimes I feel it'd be better to just give people like you 10 more years of power while the rest of us move to Canada or something. Just to see all the shit you privatize and fuck up.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-06-21 18:11:49)
eh? I don't like shitwater. But a lawsuit in the case is retarded at best.Spearhead wrote:
I just cannot believe you sometimes usmarine. This is just... fucking unbelievable. How you can be like this in this thread.
I am so sick of hearing this. MOVE then. You people babble this phrase yet dont have the sack to back it up. MOVE then. jesus.Spearhead wrote:
while the rest of us move to Canada or something.
No. I'm so sick of people like you saying "MOVE, THEN... DUR DUR DUR"usmarine2 wrote:
I am so sick of hearing this. MOVE then. You people babble this phrase yet dont have the sack to back it up. MOVE then. jesus.Spearhead wrote:
while the rest of us move to Canada or something.
I love this country.
well if you didn't say "move to canada" then I would not have said what I said now would I?Spearhead wrote:
No. I'm so sick of people like you saying "MOVE, THEN... DUR DUR DUR"usmarine2 wrote:
I am so sick of hearing this. MOVE then. You people babble this phrase yet dont have the sack to back it up. MOVE then. jesus.Spearhead wrote:
while the rest of us move to Canada or something.
I love this country.
That was before the US navy achieved any size of note and modern military training has made the need for mercenaries obsolete.usmarine2 wrote:
well, private ships licensed to carry out warfare, helped win the American Revolution and the War of 1812. So who knows?Reciprocity wrote:
The question isn't weather they should make money, they're a fucking business, that's their function. The question is whether a for-profit business should be fighting our wars. Blackwater's concern isn't the safety of US troops, their concern goes no further than the last line of their spreadsheet.
If you haven't noticed, the world and waging war have changed quite a bit since the War of 1812.
Ya, I guess I never saw a modern battlefield.Masques wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the world and waging war have changed quite a bit since the War of 1812.
Anyway, any war/conflict/op has always been aided by private business. That was the point.
I hope you're not this dense unintentionally.usmarine2 wrote:
Military laws are separate from civilian laws.Masques wrote:
A military pilot who is negligent in his or her duties can be subject to courts-martial, demotion, imprisonment, dishonorable discharge, etc. PMC pilots are subject to what? Reassignment stateside at most. That has to change.
The point is that Blackwater is effectively not operating under any law. When they fuck up in Iraq and make things harder for the US they argue that they're not subject to Iraqi law. When they fuck up in Afghanistan and kill US troops (the DOD found them at fault) and are sued in the US they argue that they're not subject to US law because it happened in a state governed by Sharia law. They provide military services and have a concrete impact on the military ("These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force," said Brig. Gen. Karl R. Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is responsible for security in and around Baghdad. "They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."), but oh...they're considered civilians so they're not subject to the UCMJ.
Yes, by providing shipping, materiel, training, etc.usmarine2 wrote:
Ya, I guess I never saw a modern battlefield.Masques wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the world and waging war have changed quite a bit since the War of 1812.
Anyway, any war/conflict/op has always been aided by private business. That was the point.
Providing actual shooters is what has changed since the 1990s and that's the part that is operating without regulation.
They are subject to local laws. They did not take an oath governed by the ucmj. They are also subject to whatever laws the gov sets for them. Since neither you or I are privy to those documents, I am not sure what they are subject to.Masques wrote:
I hope you're not this dense unintentionally.
Military members are subject to both military and civilian laws. Contractors for the most part are not subjected to the ucmj.
so eat a cock for calling me dense.
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-06-21 18:39:49)
Well they are actually security. I have yet to come across a sniper in a platoon contracted out by shitwater.Masques wrote:
Providing actual shooters is what has changed since the 1990s and that's the part that is operating without regulation.
They carry weapons and use deadly force and previously most security duties were carried out by military personnel.usmarine2 wrote:
Well they are actually security. I have yet to come across a sniper in a platoon contracted out by shitwater.Masques wrote:
Providing actual shooters is what has changed since the 1990s and that's the part that is operating without regulation.
As for offensive operations?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/washi … er.html?hp
I think you know what I was talking about. I stop calling you dense when learn some critical thinking.And the State Department’s own documents “raise serious questions” about how department officials responded to reports of Blackwater killings of Iraqis, the report said.
“There is no evidence in the documents that the committee has reviewed that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater’s actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company’s high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation,” the committee staff wrote.
Moreover, contrary to the terms of its contract, Blackwater sometimes engaged in offensive operations with the American military, instead of confining itself to its protective mission, the staff found.