• 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!

Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq After 17 Died

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This is a lie, based on ignorance....
This is simple ignorance.

Incorrect.
Click to expand...

Perhaps RA would like to explain why my statement is "a lie, based on ignorance", if he has an explanation, which I doubt. I suspect this uncivil name-calling is presented only to prop up his Rambo attitude and supposed "service" as a contractor.
 
WillRockwell said:
Perhaps RA would like to explain why my statement is "a lie, based on ignorance", if he has an explanation, which I doubt. I suspect this uncivil name-calling is presented only to prop up his Rambo attitude and supposed "service" as a contractor.
Click to expand...




What is "RA"? :ssst:



I never called you a name.


I called your 1st claim a lie. Cause it is.

I called your 2nd one ignorant cause it is. :shrug:

simply put, you are clueless to the contracting community and instead want to attack Americans who are contracted by our government to perform dangerous tasks with little or no recognition., only scorn from those with an axe to grind with Bush.


Fact is. Clinton was the 1st to use Blackwater. Did you know that? Of course not. So now unless you are done bringing old basement crap up with your childish "Reverend Asshole" (RA) shctick. I suggest we stick to facts not your baseless ignorant opinion on other Americans serving thier country.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
uhm I answered your question., I was no more "raped" than you were likley to don clown make up and lure young boys to your home. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Those "tribunal" contracts mean that you couldn't tell us, even if you were....... but we believe you. ;)
 
simply put, you are clueless to the contracting community and instead want to attack Americans who are contracted by our government to perform dangerous tasks with little or no recognition., only scorn from those with an axe to grind with Bush.
Click to expand...

I don't need a clue to the contracting community, only the information that they are paid too much, out of taxpayer dollars, and are unaccountable.
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
I don't need a clue to the contracting community, only the information that they are paid too much, out of taxpayer dollars, and are unaccountable.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to think about people who were trained with millions of dollars of taxpayers money, then quit the military and sign up as mercenaries to get even more money from the taxpayers.

It's certainly a far cry from the founding fathers intention of citizen soldiers. :shrug:
 
[liberalthought]
OH NO! Someone's making more money than me! I better call them EVIL!! Also, Blame Bush!!!
[/liberalthought]
 
EpicDude86 said:
[liberalthought]
OH NO! Someone's making more money than me! I better call them EVIL!! Also, Blame Bush!!!
[/liberalthought]
Click to expand...

I think the main problem is this. When Blackwater massacred 17 civilians in Baghdad, they fell under no legal jurisdiction, and could not be arrested. This cannot happen in the military. This one example amply demonstrates why freelance armies are a bad idea.
 
WillRockwell said:
I think the main problem is this. When Blackwater massacred 17 civilians in Baghdad, they fell under no legal jurisdiction, and could not be arrested. This cannot happen in the military. This one example amply demonstrates why freelance armies are a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is one example. one BAD example, amidst quite a few GOOD ones. we have to take the good with the bad, not just look at the negatives to make our judgements.

Mercenaries and Private Contractors are necessary unless you'd like to see your taxes go up. And thanks to the Anti-Pinkerton act you don't have to worry about being double-blasted with the price of these contractors anyways. It is cheaper in the long run to pay private contractors than to maintain and regulate, or even restrict, our National forces with these tasks and rules. They may be seen as 'bad' to some people, but they're more a necessary evil at worst and a saving grace at best.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Yes, it is one example. one BAD example, amidst quite a few GOOD ones. we have to take the good with the bad, not just look at the negatives to make our judgements.

Mercenaries and Private Contractors are necessary unless you'd like to see your taxes go up. And thanks to the Anti-Pinkerton act you don't have to worry about being double-blasted with the price of these contractors anyways. It is cheaper in the long run to pay private contractors than to maintain and regulate, or even restrict, our National forces with these tasks and rules. They may be seen as 'bad' to some people, but they're more a necessary evil at worst and a saving grace at best.
Click to expand...

Why would our taxes go up, we pay more for contractors than we pay the military? How can it possibly be cheaper to use them? Also, contractors are not sworn to protect and serve the nation, their performance is totally related to profit.
 
WillRockwell said:
Why would our taxes go up, we pay more for contractors than we pay the military? How can it possibly be cheaper to use them? Also, contractors are not sworn to protect and serve the nation, their performance is totally related to profit.
Click to expand...

Read up on the history of Private Contractors and how they get paid. It's actually cheaper, and has always been, to hire outside contractors who deal with training and administration, rather than create entire new divisions within the gov't creating a larger bureaucracy and more red-tape. I know it's not all that relevant to the discussion, but prior to the FBI, the DoJ's budget didn't leave it much room to pursue criminals across the Nation, especially in the wild west, so they called in private contractors to get the job done closer to budget, and saving man hours, instead of trying to create entirely new departments. I'm not saying their salaries are entirely justified, but if you look how much money goes to other things compared to contractors, they are just a smidgen of government spending. Especially with the passage of these crappy stimulus acts. (From both Presidencies.)


The loyalty thing might be an issue to you, but in general we hire our contractors in country, and the guys that work for those companies are gung-ho nationalists with a point to prove. No worries about wavering loyalty there. I'd be more concerned with them killing the right people than I would them turning on the country, which you could say is the current issue with more private contractors.
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
Why would our taxes go up, we pay more for contractors than we pay the military? How can it possibly be cheaper to use them? Also, contractors are not sworn to protect and serve the nation, their performance is totally related to profit.
Click to expand...

Another reason I say anytime we go to war, a draft should automatically kick in. When we privatize our armies, there's not enough real American skin in the game. In WW2 we turned citizens into soldiers and completely defeated Germany and Japan in three years, and then everybody returned home.

With Blackwater and other contracters making up half our forces, they quit making profits when the wars stop; so now we've been in two wars headed for a decade with no end in sight.
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's actually cheaper, and has always been, to hire outside contractors who deal with training and administration.
Click to expand...

No it's not, but I'd like to see your proof.
 
I jumped the gun when I said 'always'. Sorry, what I should have said is that the use of private contractors as opposed to running things "in-house" saves money on training, operations costs, and administration of the contractors. I said before it doesn't justify their massive salaries, but clearly the private sector is more efficient than the government when it comes to running certain things. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen a change in the face of Private Contracting for sure and yeah they are paid a **** ton NOW, but what I'm trying to say is that private companies have the advantage of being (and really should be) cheaper than the government running things because these private companies prevent the government from having to create more bureaucracy and monitor more people and supplies.


And, I think Private Contracts (non-classified anyways) account for about 18% of the DoD's budget. I don't think that's counting other agencies' or branch's contracts as well. While that seems a sizeable chunk, more is (and or can be) getting done using a smaller chunk-o-change.


There's evidence supporting and negating my claims in here but at least it's the CBO. Not that it makes this data any more useful or less useful.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9688/08-12-IraqContractors.pdf
 
WillRockwell said:
Why would our taxes go up, we pay more for contractors than we pay the military? How can it possibly be cheaper to use them? Also, contractors are not sworn to protect and serve the nation, their performance is totally related to profit.
Click to expand...



We pay a percentage of what it would cost to have the .mil do the same job. Theres more of that ingnorance onyour part. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
We pay a percentage of what it would cost to have the .mil do the same job. Theres more of that ingnorance onyour part. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Go play with yourself boy, there's adults trying to have a conversation here
 
Joe has a point in that, a contractor has no incentive to win a war, to see it end, and consequently may find ways to keep the conflict going. The other big point I see has not yet been addressed which is, who is accountable when a contractor kills civilians? So far, as seen in Iraq, no one is even legally able to prosecute contractors whose employees massacre civilians.

Also, about the overhead, seems to me that American tax dollars would be paying every penny of the maintenance of contractors, plus the profit. When the military is paid, there is no profit factored in. I assume a contractor force nets at least 40% profit?
 
Joe1991 said:
Another reason I say anytime we go to war, a draft should automatically kick in. When we privatize our armies, there's not enough real American skin in the game. In WW2 we turned citizens into soldiers and completely defeated Germany and Japan in three years, and then everybody returned home.

With Blackwater and other contracters making up half our forces, they quit making profits when the wars stop; so now we've been in two wars headed for a decade with no end in sight.
Click to expand...

Eh, If the people want to go to war, then Drafting is aiiiight.

The Problems with drafting that I would be wary of would be:
1) draft dodgers putting a strain on the Justice System (especially since nationalism has gone down and "dissent is patriotic" emotion has gone up)
2) Could find a large number of 'conscientious objectors' doing nothing combat related but still getting the base pay grade prior to going C.O.

Forcing people to do something is not always the best route, it's best to rely on the volunteers first, then those loyal to the money, and if you get down to having to use those who don't want to fight, you're doomed anyways. :lol:
 
American said:
What the hell does Blackwater do that the military can't?
Click to expand...

Drive these:

grizzly.gif
 
WillRockwell said:
Joe has a point in that, a contractor has no incentive to win a war, to see it end, and consequently may find ways to keep the conflict going. The other big point I see has not yet been addressed which is, who is accountable when a contractor kills civilians? So far, as seen in Iraq, no one is even legally able to prosecute contractors whose employees massacre civilians.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever seen an example in History of a contracted military group prolonging combat to increase their pay. I could be wrong, but I'm currently writing a paper on Private Contracting and from what I've researched, Contractors go to battle, end it as quickly as possible, get their pay and retire until the next conflict. Unlike the Military who have to fight during war and maintain during peacetime, the Contractor does not, and can cut his losses at any time (within contract). The trick with contractors is they do for less what the Military cannot do (sometimes at all).

WillRockwell said:
Also, about the overhead, seems to me that American tax dollars would be paying every penny of the maintenance of contractors, plus the profit. When the military is paid, there is no profit factored in. I assume a contractor force nets at least 40% profit?
Click to expand...

If a business wants to secure its assets, is it cheaper to create a whole new in house operation, plus costs of equipment, manpower, training, etc. or does it hire, for a significantly cheaper price, and outside firm to do all the work for it. PMCs absorb the cost of their initial start-up but from that point on can make a profit by cutting costs for the Military. If the Military had to pay them more or the same as if it had done the work itself, why would they even bother? (Political corruption and favorites aside.)
 
EpicDude86 said:
Eh, If the people want to go to war, then Drafting is aiiiight.

The Problems with drafting that I would be wary of would be:
1) draft dodgers putting a strain on the Justice System (especially since nationalism has gone down and "dissent is patriotic" emotion has gone up)
2) Could find a large number of 'conscientious objectors' doing nothing combat related but still getting the base pay grade prior to going C.O.

Forcing people to do something is not always the best route, it's best to rely on the volunteers first, then those loyal to the money, and if you get down to having to use those who don't want to fight, you're doomed anyways. :lol:
Click to expand...

But it's just those types of problems that would help keep check on needless wars. In WW2, virtually everyone served admirably because the war was so just; in Vietnam it was actually the veterans that began the protests to end an unecessary war.
 
Joe1991 said:
But it's just those types of problems that would help keep check on needless wars. In WW2, virtually everyone served admirably because the war was so just; in Vietnam it was actually the veterans that began the protests to end an unecessary war.
Click to expand...

Warning!!! Anecdote to follow:

One of the most honorable men I know now contracts with Triple Canopy after serving three tours in Iraq with the Army Rangers and receiving multiple disctinctions for his service.
 
theangryamerican said:
Warning!!! Anecdote to follow:

One of the most honorable men I know now contracts with Triple Canopy after serving three tours in Iraq with the Army Rangers and receiving multiple disctinctions for his service.
Click to expand...




Yup, you can serve your country in **** that would make these types piss thier pants, but you take a contract, you are worse than a terrorist to these types....


Triple Canopy are legit.... We did some training courses for a group going to protect some oil platforms or some such a couple years ago... :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom