NationStates Jolt Archive

*This is the real reason why Bush lied to invade Iraq. To loot their country for the greed of politically connected special interest corporate parasites. How is Bush any better then the terrorists reallY

Four former private security contractors who worked in Iraq have told NBC News that they witnessed private contractors kill innocent Iraqi civilians. Retired Army Ranger Captian Bill Craun said"What we saw, I know the American population wouldn't stand for." Contractors reportedly terrorized civilians, shooting indiscriminately as they ran for cover, smashing into and shooting up cars. Craun quit after seeing innocent Iraqi teenagers shot dead on the street. In an email after the incident Craun wrote "I didn't want any part of an organization that deliberately murders children and innocent civilians." Another contractor quit saying he didn't want to witness anything that could be classified as a war crime
democracynow.com

Another contractor quit saying he didn't want to witness anything that could be classified as a war crime

Americans can't commit war crimes. War crimes are only for damn sandniggers and cruel ethnic factions in Central Asia like Bosnia. No good wholesome American soldier would ever commit a war crime!

[/sarcasm]

Quote someone besides an obviously partisan source if you wish to be taken seriously.

Isn't that just anti-Bush propaganda? Get real....

Yeah...

A bit incredulous, doncha think? Might be happening, probably has once or twice, but quite a claim! "Murdering innocents"... what an assault on the emotions.

Silly liberals. Wait...

Makes you wonder about the four American contractors in Fallujah who were strung up by their ankles on that bridge.

The news should be honest and call these 'contractors' exactly what they are - mercenaries.

:rolleyes:

Well, of COURSE civilian contractors are going over there to kill people for fun. I bet that Margaret Hassan, the 59-year-old Iraqi-British citizen and coordinator of CARE, was secretly a terrorist and that's why she was gloriously executed.

The news should be honest and call these 'contractors' exactly what they are - mercenaries.

Not quite. For example, a friend of mine (who works for an American company) was asked to travel to Iraq and install fingerprint identification software for the government. A contractor? Yes. Mercenary? Um... generalization?

Admittedly, Halliburton and other companies do give a bad image to contractors. But most of the time, these guys are out there driving around, installing cell phone towers or something. I may be against the war in Iraq, but why not give Iraqis a chance to start with power, or basic government services, or stuff like that?

:rolleyes:

Well, of COURSE civilian contractors are going over there to kill people for fun. I bet that Margaret Hassan, the 59-year-old Iraqi-British citizen and coordinator of CARE, was secretly a terrorist and that's why she was gloriously executed.

She wasn't a contractor and she didn't "go over there". She had been living in Iraq with her Iraqi husband for years. Allegations that there are assholes on one side aren't the same as allegations that there are no assholes on the other.

She wasn't a contractor and she didn't "go over there". She had been living in Iraq with her Iraqi husband for years. Allegations that there are assholes on one side aren't the same as allegations that there are no assholes on the other.


No? I thought sweeping generalizations were what this thread were about. She was murdered for being allied with the foreign forces, no matter what the reality of her situation actually was.

Calling unarmed contractors murderers is as ridiculous as the statement I intentionally made, tongue-in-cheek, about Margaret Hassan.

Americans can't commit war crimes. War crimes are only for damn sandniggers and cruel ethnic factions in Central Asia like Bosnia. No good wholesome American soldier would ever commit a war crime!

[/sarcasm]
These are mercenaries, not U.S. soldiers, you twit. :rolleyes:

Quote someone besides an obviously partisan source if you wish to be taken seriously.
The story was on NBC Nightly News. But I don't know why Skapedroe chose to quote Democracy Now, for reasons that you stated.

No? I thought sweeping generalizations were what this thread were about. She was murdered for being allied with the foreign forces, no matter what the reality of her situation actually was.

Calling unarmed contractors murderers is as ridiculous as the statement I intentionally made, tongue-in-cheek, about Margaret Hassan.

We know how ridiculous the things you said about Margaret Hassan are, because we know about the facts.

We don't know how ridiculous the topic of this thread is, because we don't know any facts. Apparently NBC thinks there might be something in it.

We know how ridiculous the things you said about Margaret Hassan are, because we know about the facts.

We don't know how ridiculous the topic of this thread is, because we don't know any facts. Apparently NBC thinks there might be something in it.


Ok...

If I were to say that based on the fact that some women murder their husbands, all women are murderers, would this be a correct statement?

Bushs ancestors caused the earth to shift on its axis by trying to direct a ray from a giant crystal thru the center of the earths core
That is all

Not quite. For example, a friend of mine (who works for an American company) was asked to travel to Iraq and install fingerprint identification software for the government. A contractor? Yes. Mercenary? Um... generalization?

Admittedly, Halliburton and other companies do give a bad image to contractors. But most of the time, these guys are out there driving around, installing cell phone towers or something. I may be against the war in Iraq, but why not give Iraqis a chance to start with power, or basic government services, or stuff like that?

Well that is the problem that I think Violets and Kitties pointed out that they call evryone a contractor even them who is going over there to have guard or even mercinary duty. Creating problem for them who is actual contractors.

Ok...

If I were to say that based on the fact that some women murder their husbands, all women are murderers, would this be a correct statement?

no. that would be dumb. so?

no. that would be dumb. so?

He's trying to point out that just because a few contractors did bad things doesn't mean that ALL contractors are bad.

It may mean that much more oversight and control needs to be exercised over the contractors.

One of the main reasons that we have so many armed contractors is that the mechanism by which we train (and do not retain) soldiers, especially those in the combat arms such as infantry and special forces, means that soldiers come into service, get their training, a few years of experience, and then they leave. We have a much larger pool of trained, experienced combat soldiers outside the service than we do inside the service - and any reserve obligation that these experienced men have has already expired. This form of train/release has been US policy since 1975 - with no change and no complaints. Everyone knew what would happen if we suddenly needed them. It's not a secret.

Need a large number of experienced ex-special forces guys? You're going to have to pay through the nose to get them - and we don't have any experience doing this on a large scale - until now.

He's trying to point out that just because a few contractors did bad things doesn't mean that ALL contractors are bad.


I don't think that needed pointing out.

sounds like a normal day in Iraq under Saddam

I don't think that needed pointing out.

For anyone who believes that all armed contractors are "mercenaries" with all that seems to imply, I do believe it needs pointing out.

IS it just me, or are more people taking Skap seriously?
Wake up people, this is Democracy now. I bet they heard a rumour from a soldiers wives cousins uncles friends grandfathers sons dog that a contractor got drunk and took a potshot at a group of Iraqi citizens.
Come on people, I dont mean to be offensive, but sometimes I think people are blinded by the need to see the US/Bush screw up.

I hope the same companies running these "armed contractor" companies aren't going to be running the prisons.

For anyone who believes that all armed contractors are "mercenaries" with all that seems to imply, I do believe it needs pointing out.

If a person is a private citizen doing the duties of a soldier that makes them a mercenary.

As you pointed out it is more expensive. It is also disrupts the chain of command and makes accountability more difficult.

Well clearly all contracters are not security-types, however there is enough of a market for them in Iraq now that the Army feels compelled to pay bonuses of up to $150,000 (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/special.operations.ap/index.html) to get special forces to re-enlist rather than have them bolt to the consulting world to head back to Iraq to provide military services without military oversight.

And the British claim to be losing 500 soldiers A MONTH (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/33418.html) to those jobs as well.

The need is so rampant that these private armies wind up sometimes having the jobs of protecting the military as they do perimter security for some bases. Bremmer was protected by contracters instead of the army. Heck, the army is getting out of the business of protecting itself all over (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050217-080227-5742r), and instead relying on priavte companies to do that work.


Frankly, having that much paramilitary outside of the normal chain of command strikes me as an idea which is guaranteed to cause problems. If the military couldn't stop an abu ghraib inside it's sphere of influence, it is hardly surprising if similar goes on outside of the chain of command.

Just remember that these "contractors" or mercenaries don't wear uniforms and will probably be treated the same way that USA does with the socalled "enemy combatants" sitting at Gitmo. I hope none of the war supporters get their pants in a bunch when these mercenaries are not treated along the Geneva convention.

They are dressed the same way as terrorists and that is what they are, terrorists from USA at work in Iraq, supported by the US government, but no more than terrorists. We all know that terrorists don't wear uniforms and don't deserve to be treated humane, neither does these mercenaries.

Well clearly all contracters are not security-types, however there is enough of a market for them in Iraq now that the Army feels compelled to pay bonuses of up to $150,000 (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/special.operations.ap/index.html) to get special forces to re-enlist rather than have them bolt to the consulting world to head back to Iraq to provide military services without military oversight.

And the British claim to be losing 500 soldiers A MONTH (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/33418.html) to those jobs as well.

The need is so rampant that these private armies wind up sometimes having the jobs of protecting the military as they do perimter security for some bases. Bremmer was protected by contracters instead of the army. Heck, the army is getting out of the business of protecting itself all over (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050217-080227-5742r), and instead relying on priavte companies to do that work.


Frankly, having that much paramilitary outside of the normal chain of command strikes me as an idea which is guaranteed to cause problems. If the military couldn't stop an abu ghraib inside it's sphere of influence, it is hardly surprising if similar goes on outside of the chain of command.

Frankly, the whole idea of getting people to enlist for 4 years active/4 years reserve and then putting these trained people on the street is odd. Of course, this creates a TREMENDOUS pool of well trained people outside of the service.

There's nothing "bolt" about it. I left the Army in 1991, and after 1995, my inactive reserve window closed. Hey, I just wanted to return to a civilian job - being an infantryman was exciting and fun, but I wanted a family.

I have been offered a LOT of money to come back - but not by the Army. Private contractors have lists of names of people who had specific skills and whose obligations have expired. You just can't step out of your active obligation straight into a contractor position. You have to be out for four years.

I don't see why you shouldn't pay special forces soldiers 150,000 dollars a year - they are definitely far more lethal and effective than a dozen ordinary infantrymen (or 20 or 30 insurgents).

As a rough guide, there are many graduates of the Army's sniper school - including many who are not Special Forces. Most of these rotate out of the service after their first 4 year term. That's what I did (I'm not Special Forces, but I did get the sniper training). Hey, it's far more lucrative for me to be a lawyer in the civilian world, so I left. The only reason I didn't go back is because I still make more as a lawyer.

Two graduates from that school, dropped into the middle of 3000 armed Somalis in Mogadishu, and it is estimated that they killed or wounded 600 attackers before they ran out of ammunition and were killed.

That's an unusual level of skill for an ordinary soldier - but not unusual for those with the training. I have since (in the civilian world) learned to fly as a hobby and I can tell you that long range shooting (as only one skill that a Special Forces soldier would have) is far more difficult than flying.

If you want to keep those people around, you're going to have to pay them.

If you suddenly need them, you can't just give an ordinary infantryman a sniper rifle and put a beret on his head and call him Special Forces. Civilian ignorance of what it takes to make a well-qualified soldier and their peacetime cost-cutting strategies of cycling people quickly out of service is what brought this situation.

The story was on NBC Nightly News. But I don't know why Skapedroe chose to quote Democracy Now, for reasons that you stated.


but the truth is that Democracy Now is FAR from being a partisian source.

Any one who actually listens to it knows that.

Just because they are critical of the Bush Administration and Republican agendas doesnt mean they arent and havent been critical of the Democratic Administrations and their agendas. In fact they have. Democracy now has always had sources for their stories and great debates between people on both sides of an issue. It's award winning journalism.

They are just able to bring it on when it comes to scandals in the Govt. and large corporations because they are funded by the public and are not restricted in what they can report on.