And these private companies get immunity from prosecution under the law of the land...is that fair?M.O.A.B wrote:
I see it more of companies operating in hostile countries, like construction companies, like oil companies and so on cannot rely on draggin enlisted personnel out of combat and patrol to protect their factilities or escort their workers. At the end of the day you will need security, if you can't get hold of the real military you turn to the next thing that is packing assault rifles and armoured vehicles, which is the private companies.Braddock wrote:
So war is no longer about one country against another it is also about business opportunities and profit. That's pretty sick.SgtHeihn wrote:
The problem with comparing the 2 is this, the US military in Vietnam was alot bigger and had a larger manpower pool (the draft)
When politicians realized there was a lot of money involved in that business we call war.Braddock wrote:
That's what I had always thought, what happened along the way since then that made private companies became an important part of war?sergeriver wrote:
The US military?Braddock wrote:
Just out of curiosity which companies handled the security contracts in Vietnam?
Thing is, a private company doesn't always operate from one country and doesn't take on men solely from one country, so it has to be asked which countries laws they abide by or not. Then again I don't really know anything about laws so I'll wait for someone to explain better.Braddock wrote:
And these private companies get immunity from prosecution under the law of the land...is that fair?M.O.A.B wrote:
I see it more of companies operating in hostile countries, like construction companies, like oil companies and so on cannot rely on draggin enlisted personnel out of combat and patrol to protect their factilities or escort their workers. At the end of the day you will need security, if you can't get hold of the real military you turn to the next thing that is packing assault rifles and armoured vehicles, which is the private companies.Braddock wrote:
So war is no longer about one country against another it is also about business opportunities and profit. That's pretty sick.
The interim Government made a point of making sure foreign contractors would be exempt from Iraqi law and many, many Iraqis are very unhappy about this, it's just not fair. Can you think of any examples where foreign contractors operating in the US have been given immunity from US law by any chance? How would you feel if a Mexican security firm opened fire on a Texan family because they drove too close to their cavalcade and faced no prosecution as a result?M.O.A.B wrote:
Thing is, a private company doesn't always operate from one country and doesn't take on men solely from one country, so it has to be asked which countries laws they abide by or not. Then again I don't really know anything about laws so I'll wait for someone to explain better.Braddock wrote:
And these private companies get immunity from prosecution under the law of the land...is that fair?M.O.A.B wrote:
I see it more of companies operating in hostile countries, like construction companies, like oil companies and so on cannot rely on draggin enlisted personnel out of combat and patrol to protect their factilities or escort their workers. At the end of the day you will need security, if you can't get hold of the real military you turn to the next thing that is packing assault rifles and armoured vehicles, which is the private companies.
Iraq's infrastructure was shit long before we showed up in 2003.Braddock wrote:
Hold on, let me see if I follow your logic here. The allied forces declare war on Iraq and destroy most of the infrastructure and the Iraqis are supposed to be pleased because some of them get hired as part of the rebuilding process? To me that would be like someone smashing into my car and then paying me to repair it.Pug wrote:
Hmmm...so before the war, Saddam kept everything....Braddock wrote:
No one's really arguing here Pug now are they? What is apparent from the article however is who exactly is profiting from the 'war on terror'.
....after the war contractors rebuild and the Iraqis get a bigger share of the profits then they did with Saddam.
Or did I get that wrong?
Years of sanctions and neglect...
And yet more damage has been caused by bombs from militants/insurgents/terrorists since.
But you can still blame us in the end so, carry on.
i guess they are the only contractors there......Braddock wrote:
Blackwater aren't building infrastructure, are they?FEOS wrote:
Just how are people who are building a country's infrastructure "mercenaries"?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Contractors - Mercenaries with Government support.
Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts, including licensing and registering employees, businesses and corporations; provided, however, that Contractors shall comply with such applicable licensing and registration laws and regulations if engaging in business or transactions in Iraq other than Contracts. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Order, Private Security Companies and their employees operating in Iraq must comply with all CPA Orders, Regulations, Memoranda, and any implementing instructions or regulations governing the existence and activities of Private Security Companies in Iraq, including registration and licensing of weapons and firearms
Not exactly comparing apple to apples are we? It would be a little more understandable if the United States was facing an insurgency that has already committed itself to causing chaos by any means necessary. Apprehension does not just suddenly appear. The unease regarding PMC's in Iraq is well known. I have a hard time believing that they are not aware of the consequences for their actions. That is is illogical.Braddock wrote:
How would you feel if a Mexican security firm opened fire on a Texan family because they drove too close to their cavalcade and faced no prosecution as a result?
Also consider that now that the violence has settled down: U.S. Agrees to Lift Immunity for Contractors in Iraq
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Okay, imagine my question in a scenario where Mexico had liberated the US of the Bush regime and an insurgency was operating in the region as a result!Kmarion wrote:
Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts, including licensing and registering employees, businesses and corporations; provided, however, that Contractors shall comply with such applicable licensing and registration laws and regulations if engaging in business or transactions in Iraq other than Contracts. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Order, Private Security Companies and their employees operating in Iraq must comply with all CPA Orders, Regulations, Memoranda, and any implementing instructions or regulations governing the existence and activities of Private Security Companies in Iraq, including registration and licensing of weapons and firearmsNot exactly comparing apple to apples are we? It would be a little more understandable if the United States was facing an insurgency that has already committed itself to causing chaos by any means necessary. Apprehension does not just suddenly appear. The unease regarding PMC's in Iraq is well known. I have a hard time believing that they are not aware of the consequences for their actions. That is is illogical.Braddock wrote:
How would you feel if a Mexican security firm opened fire on a Texan family because they drove too close to their cavalcade and faced no prosecution as a result?
Also consider that now that the violence has settled down: U.S. Agrees to Lift Immunity for Contractors in Iraq
Which country they are from makes no difference. The laws that apply (or should apply, but do not in the instance of Iraq), as always, are the laws of the country they are in. Companies don't go to other countries and take their own laws with them.M.O.A.B wrote:
Thing is, a private company doesn't always operate from one country and doesn't take on men solely from one country, so it has to be asked which countries laws they abide by or not. Then again I don't really know anything about laws so I'll wait for someone to explain better.Braddock wrote:
And these private companies get immunity from prosecution under the law of the land...is that fair?M.O.A.B wrote:
I see it more of companies operating in hostile countries, like construction companies, like oil companies and so on cannot rely on draggin enlisted personnel out of combat and patrol to protect their factilities or escort their workers. At the end of the day you will need security, if you can't get hold of the real military you turn to the next thing that is packing assault rifles and armoured vehicles, which is the private companies.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-08-13 12:56:15)
A few interesting tidbits I found -
It's interesting that the article focuses on security contractors when by the CBO's estimate ~7-22% of that $85 billion was spent on security work.
Wow.According to CBO estimates, the US currently employs 190,000 contractors in Iraq and neighbouring countries, a ratio of one contractor per member of the US armed forces.
Why is it that PMCs make way more money than Armed Forces guys doing the same thing if the costs associated are the same? Where is that extra money going?the costs of a private security contract are similar to those of a US military unit performing a similar job, although during peacetime the private contract would not have to be renewed.
I agree, although it would be hard to find many Senators that are: a) not already suckling the teat of the military-industrial complex; or b) willing to jeopardize future employment within the military-industrial complex.I believe we need to create a special committee in the US Senate to exercise oversight over contracting abuses related to reconstruction and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Senator Byron Dorgan recently.
It's interesting that the article focuses on security contractors when by the CBO's estimate ~7-22% of that $85 billion was spent on security work.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-08-13 12:57:15)
Companies don't usually pack assault rifles and explosives either.Bertster7 wrote:
Which country they are from makes no difference. The laws that apply (or should apply, but do not in the instance of Iraq), as always, are the laws of the country they are in. Companies don't go to other countries and take their own laws with them.M.O.A.B wrote:
Thing is, a private company doesn't always operate from one country and doesn't take on men solely from one country, so it has to be asked which countries laws they abide by or not. Then again I don't really know anything about laws so I'll wait for someone to explain better.Braddock wrote:
And these private companies get immunity from prosecution under the law of the land...is that fair?
So if Google employees packed assault rifles with them on their way to work in their European HQ in Dublin would that mean they would be allowed to go around spraying people with bullets willy nilly? What point are you trying to make with that statement?M.O.A.B wrote:
Companies don't usually pack assault rifles and explosives either.Bertster7 wrote:
Which country they are from makes no difference. The laws that apply (or should apply, but do not in the instance of Iraq), as always, are the laws of the country they are in. Companies don't go to other countries and take their own laws with them.M.O.A.B wrote:
Thing is, a private company doesn't always operate from one country and doesn't take on men solely from one country, so it has to be asked which countries laws they abide by or not. Then again I don't really know anything about laws so I'll wait for someone to explain better.
And how is that even vaguely relevant?M.O.A.B wrote:
Companies don't usually pack assault rifles and explosives either.Bertster7 wrote:
Which country they are from makes no difference. The laws that apply (or should apply, but do not in the instance of Iraq), as always, are the laws of the country they are in. Companies don't go to other countries and take their own laws with them.M.O.A.B wrote:
Thing is, a private company doesn't always operate from one country and doesn't take on men solely from one country, so it has to be asked which countries laws they abide by or not. Then again I don't really know anything about laws so I'll wait for someone to explain better.
These are companies who actively engage in fighting militia's and terrorist fighters, you go strapping about a billion laws on them they won't get anything done, all you're doing is restricting them. A military company is not the same as a construction company.
Clearly companies like Blackwater did not have enough restrictions placed on them. I mean for fucks sake it seems like the US military had more restrictions placed on them than Blackwater et al. did. You can't go around killing people with impunity no matter what fucking business you are in.M.O.A.B wrote:
These are companies who actively engage in fighting militia's and terrorist fighters, you go strapping about a billion laws on them they won't get anything done, all you're doing is restricting them. A military company is not the same as a construction company.
It's that attitude that led to those two Blackwater guys being burned and dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge...and quite frankly they deserved it.
Nobody deserves that, you're out of order Brad.Braddock wrote:
Clearly companies like Blackwater did not have enough restrictions placed on them. I mean for fucks sake it seems like the US military had more restrictions placed on them than Blackwater et al. did. You can't go around killing people with impunity no matter what fucking business you are in.M.O.A.B wrote:
These are companies who actively engage in fighting militia's and terrorist fighters, you go strapping about a billion laws on them they won't get anything done, all you're doing is restricting them. A military company is not the same as a construction company.
It's that attitude that led to those two Blackwater guys being burned and dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge...and quite frankly they deserved it.
The people that were tortured don't make the shitty decisions in the office. They don't control what the company as whole does.
I thought Blackwater's bad press came after that event anyway? But seriously that is in no way a death that you deserve.jord wrote:
Nobody deserves that, you're out of order Brad.Braddock wrote:
Clearly companies like Blackwater did not have enough restrictions placed on them. I mean for fucks sake it seems like the US military had more restrictions placed on them than Blackwater et al. did. You can't go around killing people with impunity no matter what fucking business you are in.M.O.A.B wrote:
These are companies who actively engage in fighting militia's and terrorist fighters, you go strapping about a billion laws on them they won't get anything done, all you're doing is restricting them. A military company is not the same as a construction company.
It's that attitude that led to those two Blackwater guys being burned and dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge...and quite frankly they deserved it.
The people that were tortured don't make the shitty decisions in the office. They don't control what the company as whole does.
The Iraq occupation has definitively proven that a highly privatized nation building operation is far more costly than a mostly government run one. There are obvious functions during reconstruction that must be done via the private sector, but this operation was intentionally approached in a way that privatized several functions that the military used to handle with its own people. The original intent was to cut costs, but thanks to the use of cost-plus economics, we've actually spent far more privately than we would have otherwise.
In short, if you're going to nation build, do it with as little of the private sector as you can.
In short, if you're going to nation build, do it with as little of the private sector as you can.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-08-13 15:09:03)
Kmarion wrote:
Also consider that now that the violence has settled down: U.S. Agrees to Lift Immunity for Contractors in Iraq
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Sweet... I'll edit my post now...Kmarion wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Also consider that now that the violence has settled down: U.S. Agrees to Lift Immunity for Contractors in Iraq
And the people in the office don't open fire on squares full of innocent civilians.jord wrote:
Nobody deserves that, you're out of order Brad.Braddock wrote:
Clearly companies like Blackwater did not have enough restrictions placed on them. I mean for fucks sake it seems like the US military had more restrictions placed on them than Blackwater et al. did. You can't go around killing people with impunity no matter what fucking business you are in.M.O.A.B wrote:
These are companies who actively engage in fighting militia's and terrorist fighters, you go strapping about a billion laws on them they won't get anything done, all you're doing is restricting them. A military company is not the same as a construction company.
It's that attitude that led to those two Blackwater guys being burned and dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge...and quite frankly they deserved it.
The people that were tortured don't make the shitty decisions in the office. They don't control what the company as whole does.
Instead of saying they deserved it I'll say I don't give a fuck what happens to Blackwater contractors given the way they carry on in Iraq.
I don't either. But tbh even though the majority of them bring down the whole group there's people that won't be shooting civilians. And them 2 could of been them.Braddock wrote:
And the people in the office don't open fire on squares full of innocent civilians.jord wrote:
Nobody deserves that, you're out of order Brad.Braddock wrote:
Clearly companies like Blackwater did not have enough restrictions placed on them. I mean for fucks sake it seems like the US military had more restrictions placed on them than Blackwater et al. did. You can't go around killing people with impunity no matter what fucking business you are in.
It's that attitude that led to those two Blackwater guys being burned and dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge...and quite frankly they deserved it.
The people that were tortured don't make the shitty decisions in the office. They don't control what the company as whole does.
Instead of saying they deserved it I'll say I don't give a fuck what happens to Blackwater contractors given the way they carry on in Iraq.
Do you live in a world without a linear timeline or something?Braddock wrote:
And the people in the office don't open fire on squares full of innocent civilians.jord wrote:
Nobody deserves that, you're out of order Brad.Braddock wrote:
Clearly companies like Blackwater did not have enough restrictions placed on them. I mean for fucks sake it seems like the US military had more restrictions placed on them than Blackwater et al. did. You can't go around killing people with impunity no matter what fucking business you are in.
It's that attitude that led to those two Blackwater guys being burned and dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge...and quite frankly they deserved it.
The people that were tortured don't make the shitty decisions in the office. They don't control what the company as whole does.
Instead of saying they deserved it I'll say I don't give a fuck what happens to Blackwater contractors given the way they carry on in Iraq.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Sweet, it only took 5 years!Kmarion wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Also consider that now that the violence has settled down: U.S. Agrees to Lift Immunity for Contractors in Iraq
Rules adjusted to conditions on the ground.Braddock wrote:
Sweet, it only took 5 years!Kmarion wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Also consider that now that the violence has settled down: U.S. Agrees to Lift Immunity for Contractors in Iraq
Xbone Stormsurgezz