FU dad!usmarine wrote:
you're such a kid. go play in the corner son..Sup wrote:
they do it for loveusmarine wrote:
mercenaries dont all just do it for the money. you guys watch too many movies.
hmm I heard .sup got banned.Sup wrote:
FU dad!usmarine wrote:
you're such a kid. go play in the corner son..Sup wrote:
they do it for love
CameronPoe speaks the truthCameronPoe wrote:
They fought for a cause - not for riches and splendour. They weren't fighting to put food on the table or for a fancy car. They were fighting for freedom. Mercenaries fight to get paid, otherwise they'd join the regular military. Blackwater could get hired by Zimbabwe or Burma - they have little/no morals and don't fight on principle or for certain values. A money machine whose wheels are oiled by death, conflict and the misery of others. And it seems Iraq has had enough now that they have their sovereignty again.lowing wrote:
I guess the IRA got all of their resources for free huh?CameronPoe wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484864,00.html
Good news amidst all the economic carnage! I find the concept of hired armies quite frankly repugnant. Monetarily driven military outfits are an important part of what makes up the scum of the earth.
Last edited by blademaster (2009-01-29 17:57:29)
Aww, gee, bummer.. now, perhaps, all those diplomats might take more of an interest in properly funding the US Military's diplomatic protection abilities.Article wrote:
The move will deprive American diplomats of their main protection force in Iraq.
US Marines, Secret Service, FBI, and USSOC are good enough for the President, Senators, and Cabinet -- who the f*** are these diplomats that those existing services aren't good enough for them?!
I would say, their way of life is intolerant violent and anything but peace loving, which is fine, until it spreads to the west, then it becomes our businessoug wrote:
Umm... no because I wouldn't? Btw if you think religion is a stupid reason to go to war, what would you say if I told you that "religion" actually refers and embodies their "way of life"?lowing wrote:
Nope I wouldn't, I just don't see any more disgusting than any other stupid reason for war like religion. How come you are not up in arms about killing for religion? Or is this where I am supposed to say, you would kill for religion then...how fascinating.oug wrote:
You would kill for money then... How fascinating.
Does the rhetoric sound more familiar now?
That's nice but what are the mercenaries going to do with their spare time now? I mean it's not like there's many jobs here in the U.S. for a man who could kill another man with their bare hands or kill someone with a rifle from 1000 yards while listening to techno.
I dunno, go into Africa and hunt for the Jackal?uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
That's nice but what are the mercenaries going to do with their spare time now? I mean it's not like there's many jobs here in the U.S. for a man who could kill another man with their bare hands or kill someone with a rifle from 1000 yards while listening to techno.
I could have sworn Richard Gere killed him like 12 years ago.TheAussieReaper wrote:
I dunno, go into Africa and hunt for the Jackal?uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
That's nice but what are the mercenaries going to do with their spare time now? I mean it's not like there's many jobs here in the U.S. for a man who could kill another man with their bare hands or kill someone with a rifle from 1000 yards while listening to techno.
Would make for a good sequel, you gotta admit.uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
I could have sworn Richard Gere killed him like 12 years ago.TheAussieReaper wrote:
I dunno, go into Africa and hunt for the Jackal?
Blackwater v The Son of the Jackal.
The IRA did get a bit lost along the way, it was hard to tell if they were fighting for freedom or control of the Irish drugs trade.
Bottom line on the US govt hiring mercenaries was lack of troops.
They had three options:
- Hire mercenaries to free up regular troops and national guard (anyone know what the national guard is doing in Iraq?)
- Impose a draft
- Not invade Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.
2 and 3 weren't options so there ya go.
Bottom line on the US govt hiring mercenaries was lack of troops.
They had three options:
- Hire mercenaries to free up regular troops and national guard (anyone know what the national guard is doing in Iraq?)
- Impose a draft
- Not invade Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.
2 and 3 weren't options so there ya go.
Fuck Israel
It's called the GI Bill. Good college education teaches them to not listen to so much Techno.uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
That's nice but what are the mercenaries going to do with their spare time now? I mean it's not like there's many jobs here in the U.S. for a man who could kill another man with their bare hands or kill someone with a rifle from 1000 yards while listening to techno.
And, if you really miss putting little holes in small targets from a long distance, go to Camp Perry National Matches every summer.
6"-12" diameter Target, 600 meters out, semi-auto M-16 clone with NO optics, 10 out of 10 shots? yeah.. people do that.
FEOS wrote:
You people throw the word "mercenary" around and clearly haven't the slightest fucking clue what a mercenary actually is/does.
Spearhead wrote:
I'd say any private security force thats trained and equipped to fight primarily in combat is a mercenary.FEOS wrote:
So the non-military people who provide security at shopping malls and other businesses are mercenaries as well, eh?
A guard at a shopping mall with a handgun is just a wannabe cop. oh ya and they're domestic. Not in a conflict a gajillion miles away on foreign soil.
Do you agree with that?
Nearly everyone with a job ultimately falls into the first category.American Heritage Dictionary wrote:
mer·ce·nar·y (mûr'sə-něr'ē) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
None of the security contractors fall into the second.
It's a misuse of the term in an attempt to be derogatory. Those people are not mercenaries. They are not serving in any country's military. They are not performing military missions. They are providing personal and material security for US diplomatic missions (not a military mission) or for other countries' civil servants (again...not a military mission). They are not serving in foreign armies or performing combat missions on behalf of US or foreign governments. Therefore, they are not mercenaries.
“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
They are not mercenaries, just "contractors" who carry guns...
And it should be pointed out that they are not all US citizens.
Jeremy Scahill (author of The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) points out that Chilean nationals, mostly former soldiers, whose country of origin does not participate in hostilities in Iraq, work for Blackwater in that country, thus those Chileans meet the definition of "mercenary."
And it should be pointed out that they are not all US citizens.
Jeremy Scahill (author of The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) points out that Chilean nationals, mostly former soldiers, whose country of origin does not participate in hostilities in Iraq, work for Blackwater in that country, thus those Chileans meet the definition of "mercenary."
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2009-01-30 03:38:09)
No, they don't. They are not being hired to serve in another nation's military. None of the employees of any of those companies (at least in Iraq and Afghanistan--I don't know about their operations in other countries) are employed by any nation's military. None of those companies in Iraq or Afghanistan are doing military missions.TheAussieReaper wrote:
They are not mercenaries, just "contractors" who carry guns...
And it should be pointed out that they are not all US citizens.
Jeremy Scahill (author of The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) points out that Chilean nationals, mostly former soldiers, whose country of origin does not participate in hostilities in Iraq, work for Blackwater in that country, thus those Chileans meet the definition of "mercenary."
“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
They are doing a job which would normally be carried out by the security services and military personnel of the US state.
If they are being paid to carry arms for a foreign country in a third country that pretty well meets the definition.
Just because you choose to call them 'contractors' instead of 'soldiers' doesn't change a thing.
I can't think of a country besides the US which contracts out this kind of work, not on this kind of scale.
Either it was due to shortage of troops, lack of will to impose a draft or they wanted their buddies in the defense industry to make a few billion at the expense of Joe the Plumber, take your pick.
If they are being paid to carry arms for a foreign country in a third country that pretty well meets the definition.
Just because you choose to call them 'contractors' instead of 'soldiers' doesn't change a thing.
I can't think of a country besides the US which contracts out this kind of work, not on this kind of scale.
Either it was due to shortage of troops, lack of will to impose a draft or they wanted their buddies in the defense industry to make a few billion at the expense of Joe the Plumber, take your pick.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-30 04:06:50)
Fuck Israel
Your defining a military mission and security detail is separate. But, what are the US military doing in Iraq?FEOS wrote:
No, they don't. They are not being hired to serve in another nation's military. None of the employees of any of those companies (at least in Iraq and Afghanistan--I don't know about their operations in other countries) are employed by any nation's military. None of those companies in Iraq or Afghanistan are doing military missions.
Providing security.
What are (were) Blackwater doing in Iraq?
Providing security.
They are carrying out identical missions that the US army were. They might not be hired to serve in another nations military, but they are being hired to act as another nations military. I'd equate them almost to the standard the Praetorian Guard in Rome.
I don't think money ever changed hands tbh. Libya sent the majority of the arms and Semtex in retaliation for the UK's support of the bombing of Libya. It was a proxy war of sorts to them.Varegg wrote:
Have your reading skills gone bad lowing?lowing wrote:
You mean the IRA never had to buy weapons or information, nothing?JahManRed wrote:
The volunteers of the IRA never got paid a penny. Their motivation was not money or to go all John Wayne on some Iraqi ass, it was to unite Ireland. Plus they were up against one of the best trained and supplied armies in the world using 20 year old weapons most of the time. No comparison whatsoever.
Yeah their resources where free, thanks partly to your fellow country men. Cheers for that.
He said they didn't fight for money and if you didn't catch the other clue in there he also said IRA got much of their funds from US citizens ...
The USA was the largest contributor of funds to the IRA, I don't know what exactly the bought with the money. Sweeties maybe?
Anyway, I know where your going. You are going to argue that Black water is a weapon to be bought. Just like a bomb or a bullet. Not true. Black water will work for any nation for profit. That is completely the opposite to the IRA.
My friends father was shot 5 times in the face as he sat in his car. The guy who did it, didn't do it for money. The hand gun he was shot with was used on multiple murders and had actually been found by the police and was handed back to the killers. Even tho hand guns are illegal here. The gun was a British army issued revolver that somehow made its way into a UVF loyalist death squads hands. I seriously doubt they bought it either.
Yer wastin' yer time, I was called a mercenary by the people of this forum because I got paid to work on helicopters in Iraq. SO basically according to the sideliners on this forum anyone that earned a paycheck in a warzone that they don't agree with is a mercenary or a war profiteer or a baby killer.FEOS wrote:
No, they don't. They are not being hired to serve in another nation's military. None of the employees of any of those companies (at least in Iraq and Afghanistan--I don't know about their operations in other countries) are employed by any nation's military. None of those companies in Iraq or Afghanistan are doing military missions.TheAussieReaper wrote:
They are not mercenaries, just "contractors" who carry guns...
And it should be pointed out that they are not all US citizens.
Jeremy Scahill (author of The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) points out that Chilean nationals, mostly former soldiers, whose country of origin does not participate in hostilities in Iraq, work for Blackwater in that country, thus those Chileans meet the definition of "mercenary."
not really since i doubt he knows anyone in blackwater.blademaster wrote:
CameronPoe speaks the truth
Not relevant. I simply disagree with private military/police. Period. Don't need to know someone in Blackwater to hold that view.usmarine wrote:
not really since i doubt he knows anyone in blackwater.blademaster wrote:
CameronPoe speaks the truth
no its not irrelevant. what he quoted you on made it sound like you knew every ones goals in blackwater.CameronPoe wrote:
Not relevant. I simply disagree with private military/police. Period. Don't need to know someone in Blackwater to hold that view.usmarine wrote:
not really since i doubt he knows anyone in blackwater.blademaster wrote:
CameronPoe speaks the truth
Blackwater's goals are whatever someone pays them money to do.usmarine wrote:
no its not irrelevant. what he quoted you on made it sound like you knew every ones goals in blackwater.CameronPoe wrote:
Not relevant. I simply disagree with private military/police. Period. Don't need to know someone in Blackwater to hold that view.usmarine wrote:
not really since i doubt he knows anyone in blackwater.
And if he did, they would give a balanced view considering their paychecks would be in jeopardy?usmarine wrote:
no its not irrelevant. what he quoted you on made it sound like you knew every ones goals in blackwater.CameronPoe wrote:
Not relevant. I simply disagree with private military/police. Period. Don't need to know someone in Blackwater to hold that view.usmarine wrote:
not really since i doubt he knows anyone in blackwater.
Considering the wide field of security, I doubt being removed from Iraq will really affect their paychecks.JahManRed wrote:
And if he did, they would give a balanced view considering their paychecks would be in jeopardy?usmarine wrote:
no its not irrelevant. what he quoted you on made it sound like you knew every ones goals in blackwater.CameronPoe wrote:
Not relevant. I simply disagree with private military/police. Period. Don't need to know someone in Blackwater to hold that view.
blackwater = mercenaries
the US goverment hires them so they have plausible deniability
the US goverment hires them so they have plausible deniability