Skip to comments.
ProRev: U.S. Hiring Mercenaries for Iraq
News Max Progressive Reviwe ^
| 02 APR 04
| Carl Limbacher
Posted on 04/02/2004 4:54:03 PM PST by dts32041
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
To: endthematrix
IMO, a mercenary is only someone hired outside a nation's own normal military recruitment plan to assist in fighting a war. Therefore, if a military convoy is being protected by foreign hired soldiers during the combat phase of the war, then they are mercenaries.
If foreigners are hired to protect civilian convoys by civilian contractors after the combat phase of the war, then they are not mercenaries.
Our military convoys were not, and are not, protected by foreign hires.
41
posted on
04/02/2004 10:25:08 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)
To: dts32041
http://www.ilrg.com/subject/lawofwar/15conv-mercenaries.html
FYI, This the article the progressive review pointed to.
42
posted on
04/02/2004 10:31:19 PM PST
by
dts32041
(I have contributed monthly, since January 2003, how about you?)
To: xzins
You said someone hired... What about Americans through private companies. What does "assist in fighting a war" cover?
"In February, Blackwater, through a subcontractor, began hiring former combat personnel in Chile, offering up to $4,000 a month to guard oil wells in Iraq, the company official said. Some of the Chileans worked for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, the spokesman confirmed.
You got this thing mixed up.
43
posted on
04/02/2004 10:45:34 PM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: endthematrix
I don't think they're any more a mercenary than is a Mexican security guard watching a K-Mart in Kansas.
A contract was let for a specific security service and this company was able to provide the specifications of the contract.
The Hessians in the Revolutionary War were mercenaries. A hired group of foreign fighters.
44
posted on
04/02/2004 11:04:28 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)
To: xzins
Thanks for the clarification. There are many white papers on the DoD contracting out services. To some, the issue is cost and efficiency benefits. The flip side is corruption and oversight and the illusion created of conventional military numbers and hiding support related deaths.
There is little doubt some Rats what to frame the debate into profiteering and campaign contributions. IMO, the red tape within the armed services has caused the farming out of support services that would be better served under the respecting commands. If you join the Army you maybe a cook or driver. The pay should be crap and you don't necessarily need to get the same training an infantryman. The cost should be cheaper than private corps, then against the US would be funding all the health care and other welfare. Also, on a national sovereignty rant, why should the US military be beholden to powerful (foreign)corporations that could influence national security issues?
45
posted on
04/02/2004 11:43:24 PM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: Allegra
Lol, I've seen some of those Chilean and El Salvadoran bodyguards in Najaf and they most definitely have the Death Squad alumni look to them. Bodyguards yes, but mercenaries, no. They are charged with defensive rolls, not offensive operations. The writer fails to even guage them against the very definition of mercenary he cites. Sloppy journalism or biased reporting? My guess is the latter.
46
posted on
04/02/2004 11:50:30 PM PST
by
Justa
(Politically Correct is morally wrong.)
To: dts32041
One Man's mercenary, is another Man's employee.
47
posted on
04/03/2004 12:30:56 AM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Cannoneer No. 4
You left out this definition of mercenaries - Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party...
48
posted on
04/03/2004 12:32:46 AM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Justa; tomakaze; Eagle Eye
Goodness...ANOTHER FReeper over here!
That does it..we're going to have to form a FR Iraq Chapter.
:-)
49
posted on
04/03/2004 12:37:24 AM PST
by
Allegra
(And WAIT!! That's not all! Call now and receive this FREE....)
To: vbmoneyspender; dts32041; adam_az
"civilian contractors"? Were they there to put up drywall?
Their must exist a definition to describe this type of occupation other than mercenary. "Imported security detail"?
50
posted on
04/03/2004 12:37:32 AM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: ChiefKujo; historian1944; 91B; monie8401; Steel Wolf
ping
51
posted on
04/03/2004 2:16:56 AM PST
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Some have elected to resist. Having made their decision, they are being engaged and destroyed.)
To: Cannoneer No. 4
Hmmm-whether or not you qualify as a mercenary would depend on what role you preformed. As these guys were not active combatants (they did not go seeking combat) they do not qualify as mercs.
I know a Brit paramedic who was working for KBR at Camp Cedar (for about $100K/year) and I wouldn't call him a merc either (he had previously been with one of the RM commando units).
52
posted on
04/03/2004 2:45:41 AM PST
by
91B
(God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
To: dts32041
53
posted on
04/03/2004 3:16:35 AM PST
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Some have elected to resist. Having made their decision, they are being engaged and destroyed.)
To: archy; Travis McGee; Long Cut; Khurkris; Matthew James; Criminal Number 18F
ping
54
posted on
04/03/2004 3:28:37 AM PST
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Some have elected to resist. Having made their decision, they are being engaged and destroyed.)
To: dts32041
55
posted on
04/03/2004 4:05:38 AM PST
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Some have elected to resist. Having made their decision, they are being engaged and destroyed.)
To: dts32041
They were US citizens working in the interests of the US government.Revenge
To: Cannoneer No. 4; Travis McGee
I disagree with the author. Working as security guards does not make them mercenaries.
To: Matthew James
To me, you are a mercenary if you would work for the other side if they offered a better deal. If no financial inducement could cause you to switch sides, you're not a mercenary.
58
posted on
04/03/2004 4:58:22 AM PST
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Some have elected to resist. Having made their decision, they are being engaged and destroyed.)
To: dts32041
Bump.
59
posted on
04/03/2004 5:09:16 AM PST
by
MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
(Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
To: jpl
Civilians are in fact far better placed to provide security than uniformed military personnel. "Civilians" involved in organized security/para-military operations are not civilians.
60
posted on
04/03/2004 5:16:36 AM PST
by
A. Pole
(<SARCASM> The genocide of Albanians was stopped in its tracks before it began.</S>)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson