• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress to probe private military contractors in Afghanistan

And you "left wingers" will soon realize that Health Care Reform is not too much different from the $400 gallon of gas when you start seeing bills for $200 syringes and $500 cases of gauze. Corruption by any other name is just as ****ed up.

Where have you been? Outrageous bills like this have been common place for years! That's why we need reform. Get it "reform"?
 
Well, not really.

Actually, not at all.

They don't lethally target. Their only kinetic action is defensive. And they usually shoot the wrong people.

If anything, they are a major detriment to U.S. led operations in theater.

Yeah, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

You don't join the invading side to play defender. Their PR may say that they only play defense-tackle, but there's substantial evidence that they've run a few plays of their own, or two, or three.
 
And you "left wingers" will soon realize that Health Care Reform is not too much different from the $400 gallon of gas when you start seeing bills for $200 syringes and $500 cases of gauze. Corruption by any other name is just as ****ed up.

.......$400 gallon of gas? Seriously? Who pays that much for gas anywhere in America?
 
I am glad that they are finally doing a probe on military contractors. For example, Blackwater does need one really badly.

I have always been against Private Military companies like BLackWater being used in war as well. I don't think their is any place for them in our military operations as they aren't accountable for their actions.
 
Last edited:
Where have you been? Outrageous bills like this have been common place for years! That's why we need reform. Get it "reform"?

But the reality of it is that the government paid normal prices for all of that. The $400 hammer did not cost $400. The dirty secret is that by allocating higher costs to those items, the government can essentially fund whatever it wants. $380 of that $400 went to some other program but the hammer is actually reported at $400. Generally the monies go to defense to cover cost overruns not allowed under budget. Government accounting at the federal level is a joke.
 
Yup, they've never been used ever, until Bush, right? :roll:

Not for security. Our military has always been responsible for that previously.
 
Last edited:
Showing you have no clue as to why the fuel cost in Afghanistan is so high. Hint: it has to do with the fact the region is at war, and is not transportation friendly.

I know the drawbacks to transporting most anything into and out of Afghanistan, trust me, I've tried to send numerous items in and out, and for a while was working with my Dad to get him out on a flight. I mean, do you know how hard it is to wheel an 80 gallon drum down a goat path? Not. Fun.
 
Wait for it!

*** it's Bush's fault***

If you say so, even though I am surprised you are blaming Bush. I thought us liberals were the ones who did that.
 
Yeah, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Their primary job is protection, not offensive operations. They don't own battlespace, they don't partner with HNF, they aren't required to gather or report intelligence. They aren't contracted to conduct recon, nor lethally target.

You don't join the invading side to play defender. Their PR may say that they only play defense-tackle, but there's substantial evidence that they've run a few plays of their own, or two, or three.

They very well could have done their own targeting, but that isn't their job and I am pretty sure that any targeting they may have done wasn't sanctioned by any U.S. HQ.

In my experience seeing Blackwater, they usually just rolled out on convoys providing force pro to whoever they were guarding. They are entitled to protect themselves if engaged, but that's the extent of it.
 
That sound a little different than this case. Essentially, as I understand it, the contractors are paying protection money to the enemy, and essentially billing us for it.

I'm surprised that people are pretty quiet about this. Their tax dollars are indirectly funding the enemy.

I thought it was a big deal when I saw it. I think the quietness has to do with the fact it's not really a debate topic. Who is going to come out in favor of paying protection money to the enemy?

US and allied forces have been doing this exact same thing for years:

US bribe insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda - Times Online

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

Petraeus will tell Congress that there has been great progress at a local level in Iraq following a surge in the number of troops this year, but little sign of political reconciliation.

In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that “local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.

Army tells its soldiers to 'bribe' the Taleban - Times Online

British forces should buy off potential Taleban recruits with “bags of gold”, according to a new army field manual published yesterday.

Army commanders should also talk to insurgent leaders with “blood on their hands” in order to hasten the end of the conflict in Afghanistan.

The edicts, which are contained in rewritten counter-insurgency guidelines, will be taught to all new army officers. They mark a strategic rethink after three years in which British and Nato forces have failed to defeat the Taleban. The manual is also a recognition that the Army’s previous doctrine for success against insurgents, which was based on the experience in Northern Ireland, is now out of date.

The new instructions came on the day that Gordon Brown went farther than before in setting out Britain’s exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister stated explicitly last night that he wanted troops to begin handing over districts to Afghan authorities during next year — a general election year in Britain.

Addressing the issue of paying off the locals, the new manual states that army commanders should give away enough money to dissuade them from joining the enemy. The Taleban is known to pay about $10 (£5.95) a day to recruit local fighters.

If it's okay when the US and British governments do it, then why is it being investigated when private contractors do it? From my perspective, it sounds like the Dems in Congress are simply returning to fertile soil to find something to attack the Republicans.
 
Nice to see you RightInNYC, you have not been around enough lately.

I think there is a difference between paying people to fight for us, and paying the enemy not to attack us. One works us closer to success, one only delays the fighting, and adds resources to the enemy.
 
Nice to see you RightInNYC, you have not been around enough lately.

Nice to see you too - I just finished up finals, so I should be around more now.

I think there is a difference between paying people to fight for us, and paying the enemy not to attack us. One works us closer to success, one only delays the fighting, and adds resources to the enemy.

I just don't see that much of a difference, especially if we don't know the exact details of what was going on here.
 
Wonderful news there. Your presence has been missed.

As I understand this, the issue is that money is going directly from contractors to the Taliban in this case. In other words, we are funding them at a single remove. I think that is not acceptable. Needless to say, the investigations are not complete, but if we are funding our enemies, that I think has to stop.
 
Back
Top Bottom