It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mercenaries open new Baghdad Office

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
They are undertaking offensives, not soley defensive postures

They are killing people


And you know this how?


The USA went there for a reason. They believed due to intellegence (I agree was faulty) that there was a threat there. There may have been no physical threat, but a rogue dictator was still a threat to the area and to the people there. Not to mention giving the finger essentially to the UN Resolutions (the world in a sense) for 11 years or so.

To win a war (which this is) requires being creative and unpredictable, using deception and attack to win. In fact use every tool at our disposal to win. I don't follow the thought "Winning is not important, playing the game is".

If that is in fact true, then why do we bother keep score??

Yes, we have private contractors there. Use every means nessasary to win. I suppose some people don't want to win, but that is the goal of the matter.




posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Yes, we have private contractors there. Use every means nessasary to win. I suppose some people don't want to win, but that is the goal of the matter.


Every means? even if they are under no obligation to follow any of the same rules our military is suppost to be following?

Where do you draw the line with "every means nessasary"? Is torture included?



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Yes, we have private contractors there. Use every means nessasary to win. I suppose some people don't want to win, but that is the goal of the matter.

So, based by your statement, the Isurgents that are involved in the Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers have also the right to "hire any private contractor" in order to "use every means necessary to win"?

Yes, that includes endless numbers of suicide bombers coming from all over the place.

[edit on 6/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Every means? even if they are under no obligation to follow any of the same rules our military is suppost to be following?

Where do you draw the line with "every means nessasary"? Is torture included?


Ahhhh, I hate getting into these discussions, because I tend to think like a warrior. I make a statement about the base tactics of war and I should have known the sympathizers want to pin me to the wall. Or at least pin me down about morals, which was not what I was talking about. I suppose in hind-sight I just rattled off some low-brow thoughts...but we are all human right? I am glad that so many here are always right though, to turn me around about how wrong I am. I am always encouraged by the digital genius that surrounds me. Oh well, I am allowed an opinion. I might even be allowed to be wrong or right now and then. I don't have an ego about the matter. I believe what I believe.

Yeah, I'm a cro-magnon sometimes...


To win a war? From a warrior's perspective, the answer is Yes (Keep in mind, I personally might not agree with bombing civilians, but it IS war. For BOTH sides. I can actually see both or all sides of an argument you know...even my own).

I spent quite a bit of time with the shooters & looters (warriors). To them it is you versus them. Not the view of the politicians who make it a moral issue of good vs evil (or right and wrong).

And to Souljah's post, I think this answers it too. If you want me to see the other side, sure I can do that. I am not biased to say what they (Iraqis, etc, etc) are doing is morally wrong. They are doing what they believe they need to do to win. Again, keep in mind I am speaking about the base concept of war.

You have a rock, I have a stick. One of us must win.

The people watching can say I am right and you are wrong or the opposite, but one of us will still be dead. You throw a rock and hit my friend who is innocent just to distract me and then attack. Was that wrong? You want to win right? Then you do what you need to do. I have some money (shells, beads, whatever) and I pay two big guys to attack you. I do what I need to do.

Kill the enemy by any means available before he kills you.
There are no rules, except to win.

So gosh, the insert faction here is "evil"? No, that is a moral issue. It's war. They do what they must. But their people don't sellout and start undermining the whole action. In that way I actually respect them for that.

Nuff said. I'll shut up now.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
To win a war? From a warrior's perspective, the answer is Yes (Keep in mind, I personally might not agree with bombing civilians, but it IS war. For BOTH sides. I can actually see both or all sides of an argument you know...even my own).


thanks for taking the time to type up such an elaborate answer -

however you seemed to have skirted around my 2nd question. I see that you're fine with mercs, but...

Where do you draw the line - from a "warrior's perspective" - when you say "every means necessary"?



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   


Where do you draw the line - from a "warrior's perspective" - when you say "every means necessary"?


IMO the line is drawn is drawn at the killing of innocent women and children, disgracing the dead, using kids to further your cause through human shields/kid-bombs, pretty much anything involving women and kids and even men who are not in the fight so to say.
(unless a women or kid rolls up with a gun and you can't stop them....then they're a target)

If you are a combatant, in this case American troop or Iraqi Insurgent or "MERC/Contractor" then you are fair game. Anything goes as long as it is between you and the aggressor. If you are there to fight then you fall into the "anything goes" both ways category.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So, based by your statement, the Isurgents that are involved in the Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers have also the right to "hire any private contractor" in order to "use every means necessary to win"?

Yes, that includes endless numbers of suicide bombers coming from all over the place.

[edit on 6/5/05 by Souljah]


They already have their own mercs, Ayman al-Zawahiri is foreignor, along with as much as a third to half (maybe more) of the current insurgents fighting US forces.

There is alot of BLANK to go around on both sides, but if you thinki the Insurgency (mostly the foreign members) with their civilian beheadings and mosque bombings or saddam with his torture chambers and secret police have the Highroad in the arguement then you are seriously think and look around what's going. The Insurgents are doing a lot more harm to Iraqis than they are to american forces and a good numbers of insurgents are saudi's, syrians and ect.

I agree with you guys, we shouldn't be there, there was very little incentive besides the Oil and TRYING to stabilize the middle east (Umn wonder which one tanks rank with bushie)

I mean come on put your feelings about Bush and/or anti US sentiments aside for a sec, Do you honestly think that the insurgency with it's Mosque bombings, Beheadings, Police executions, firing from inside mosque and other places protected by the rules of war are on the upside of the arguements, I mean the US are far from saints but when you tally everything up do you still believe coalition forces have the short end of the stick in their methods?

like I said I dont like the present administration, I'm not flag waving cheerleader either, there is plenty of SHite to BLANK about here but I can set aside one issue to discuss another. I see no wrong in IRAQI using roadside bombs or suicide attacks against US?coalition forces, it's war and it's the most effective means they have against a superior enemy. But honestly tally up the attrocities on both sides (with out bringing in your personal girpes and bias) and tally up who has done what. and honestly think if the Insurgents or even saddam had the upper hand in this matter base on their present (past for sadam) actions do you think they would run a cleaning camp they the coalition does now. I mean have u seen what saddam did to the kurds and have u seen any of the beheadings mosque bombings???

this isn't as murky as the Isreali palestianian thing, it hasn't degenerated into that yet where you would have to be a complete Moron to give a least some merit to accusations made on both side.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Well ask yourself this, how do we know its the insurgents who are doing all the bombings in Iraq and not the Mercenaries?

As long as the the appearance of insurgency continues, the US and Britian keep forces on the ground.

I'm not saying that I know for sure either way. But does anyone?

Remember the Nick Berg debacle? The jury is still out on who exactly those guys in the background were. There was a mighty sense among the public who looked carefully at that video that what we were looking at were either Western troops or mercenaries.

18,000 mercenaries in Iraq?

One thing is for certain the Mercs don't have "embedded journalists" following them around and reporting on their actions. So who knows what the hell they are doing?



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
well legalizer you at least bring up "Unbiased" points, but like you said neither of us is there and so who knows either way just like you said. BUT insurgents have taken responsibility for the vast majority of these attacks unless you think al-Zawahiri and the baath/sunni element are also working for the US.

I say historically Mercenaries have earn their reputations in most peoples Eyes, I don’t particular share this view but I wouldn't disagree most of the allegations historically made against them. However modern PMC are an evolution of historical mercs, at least most of the ones used by the US in iraq. and if you want to paint a wide brush the PMCs incidents in the balkans and africa stated above, I would guess (seriously doubt) that you guys who paint the church (i know apples and oranges) with an even wider brush with their systematic cover up and widespread child molestation.

You (legalizer) brought up a good point, un tainted by an obvious pro or anti bias either way. Most of the above poster had such a heavy anti Bush and or american slant that it would be very hard to be taken as objectively, I'm not an bush fan and was put off by such obvious bias. I saw we have more than enough people waiting to pounce on these guys that if any impropriety would have taken place it would have been pasted on the media like the second coming. I mean the above poster wanted to honestly looked down on guys who are going around with guns half cocked slapping people around (these are the harshest allegations I've heard of the mercs) compared to people who have gleefully admitted to beheading civilians and blowing up their own people in mosque during prayers and such or unarmed injured people begging for their lives.

Honestly I do think these guys are playing are higher role than we are being told, they are probably taking in a couple of covert ops and take a proactive role (you know what I mean) in their protective roles. I think I heard they were carrying out interrogations in some cases. But as of late, PMCs are being higher by the newly formed Iraqi government and their police/military services. Now taking all this into account we've seen what sadam used to do in Iraq, anybody who would care to argue this (sadam having a more humane way than the US or PMCs) is so far gone that I would put under…well I wouldn’t consider myself dignified finishing that statement. And we've seen what insurgents have admitted to, beheadings, mosque bombings, the helicopter pilot (contractor not too long ago begging for his life). I'm not even taking into account the police killings, IEDs and government bombings, booby trapping the dead/injured because honestly I find this a valid method of guerilla warfare, anybody who cares to disagree with that is a threat to human evolution and/or suicidal if they think they can take on a trillion dollar military infrastructure or any other vastly superior force wearing a white shirt (old cowboy references) and keeping every dots and “I” of the modern day altruistic views on the rules of war. I mean If we applied even a tenth of the rules and values showed by these insurgents the war would have been over a long time ago with our military resources and well we would have been up there with stalin and the SS in the numbers of death (collateral and otherwise). I mean we could have carpet bombed Iraq with MOABs while still at very least been honestly saying we were targeting Insurgents populated areas (don’t think insurgents can say they detonated a bomb in the middle of a mosque during prayers trying to get Americans).all well this is long enough and I’m ranting but you get my point.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I don't care what they do. I don't care if they're running black ops in Baghdad while I'm still in diapers. I don't care if they're just doing protection details. I don't care if they're running drugs or oil or prostitutes. I don't care.

What I do care about is the fact we're floating the bill for their salaries, their contracts, their equipment, their negotiation lunches, what have you.

I have a lot of respect for the men, because I understand the qualifications for the lowest man in the ranks is at least Ranger with trigger time. The problem is that men with these credentials are actually worth what we are paying them, and I don't feel that the cost is justified. I don't feel that at this time it should be compulsory and necessary that we pay them.

They don't sell a product, they provide a service. A service that these VIPs and diplomats certainly appreciate, but a service that is called upon by DoD.

We're paying TRUCK DRIVERS for Halliburton 80 grand a year. Truck drivers are worth 80 grand a year, but they should be paid with the profits that the trans lines generate providing the service to their clients. They shouldn't be paid with tax dollars.

Halliburton just spent $12 million to transport $2 million worth of oil. Oil from the sale of which WE will see NO profit. Hell, Halliburton has probably burned $2 million worth in oil itself since it was wheels down. And that $12 million was OUR money.

We're into this WoT gig to the tune of $300 billion so far, and as I've said before, the meter's still running. What the hell are we doing? We need to completely revamp our system of accountability and make these operations efficient, or we are going to en up eating ourselves. Literally.

[edit on 7-5-2005 by DeltaChaos]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Deltachaos


that my friend is the truth, I and I agree with it 100%. I'm a lot more concern with paying for this through the nose than with them hypothetically slapping around and getting rough with self admittedly butchers of tied and gagged civilians and people in the middle of prayers

for the Anti bush and/or American crowd, you can ride Halliburton (their accounting, the Cheney connection), who was really calling the shots at abu-gharaid (I know I killed the spelling) the cost of going to Iraq and the real motives(reason are plentiful) and the resources this has taken away from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin laden as well as our general relations with most of our allies and with the European people as whole with out having to make up stuff or making mountains out of moles and sounding like complete idiots in general. There is more than enough to gripe about this administration and Iraq with out having to exaggerate or make stuff up or sit around WISHING and hoping for our troops to get slaughtered (or do some slaughtering) so you can go around all big shot railing about bush or whatever when there is plenty of honest and down right dreadful foreign as well as domestic issues to take up.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
Wow they are pretty much the equivlanet of a modern day Shadowrunner.

I've got a friend that is part of a private police force (rent-piggie) He even gets a gun.. Right now he just keeps criminals away from Medical Center Hospital here in Odessa Texas.


The guys that we talk about in this post are highly trained mainly ex special forces guys so I think your friend doesn't realy count as one of these guys nor does he rate to be called one of these guys.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by SportyMB
Im sure there are peope in all professions who do the same....
sadly it's true...

Just cause some teachers moleste little ones........should we assume they all do?

I suppose you are anti-educators now huh?

Do Teachers BUY little ones, and sell them?

Do they commit Sex Trafficking in the land, that was torn apart by a terrible civil war, like Bosnia?

Do these Teachers get alot of money?

PLEASE!


Actually if you have been paying any attention to the news lately you would have noticed that in the past 6 months there have been atleast 6 or 7 different acts of child molestation by teachers. Most of these teachers were females. And this was in the USA.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
They are not mercenaries. According to Geneva covention :

Art 47. Mercenaries

A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) 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 ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


Because the Blackwater ops are residents of teritory controlled by Party to the conflict (USA) they cannot be considered mercenaries.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
They are not enlisted in any branch of service

They are not subjected to the military chain of command, other than their duty officer's assigned task to them

They are undertaking offensives, not soley defensive postures

They are killing people

What has you hung up about the term mercenary? Are "privatization" vs. "personal account" or "Death Tax" vs "Estate Tax" other points of hang up for you?
Spin as you like, Blackwater forces are 'for hire' soldiers, i.e. Mercenaries.
And if they are slow to update their web page, as you say, why is it of such concern to you?


Ok how do you know that they are taking an offensive posture. Are you there have you been there. Have you seen it first hand probably not. Prove to me that these guys are going on the offensive and not just defending themselves. Prove it.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   


Well ask yourself this, how do we know its the insurgents who are doing all the bombings in Iraq and not the Mercenaries?


Most of these men are ex special forces, Marines and federal agents who go the private side cause the money is alot better..........there's no secret there.
They are not baby killers who go around bombing people and targeting civilians. I have personnaly worked and talked with these guys before and they are just average joes like you and me only they have a certain that makes alot of money.....They do not kill innocent civilians!!!!!



I'm not saying that I know for sure either way


No you do not know for sure!!!

Anyways, please can someone prove that the "mercs"

took offensive postures? NO.....they are simply protective and defense.
Prove otherwise!

Anyways, there have not been any news reports are anything saying they are offensive in any matter........are you magically thinking this crap up?
Are is it that you assume since they are American they must be responsible for the bombings? You are so anti-American, It's pathetic!


[edit on 7/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
there are around 40 private security companies in iraq and they all follow rules of engagment set out by there company in agreement with the Department of Defence...... however i must admit that they very basic compared to the military's version but stilll they all abide by them before opening fire..... these people are not given free run of the country to kill as and when they please, even though blackwater is renouned in the private military business for being cowboys but they are not the only ones.... and there office is not new like the title suggests they was one of the first private companies out here and knowing a few are very good proffesional people! as with all the companies in iraq... well ok maybe not all like the ones who dont provide enough security for there employees!




posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jayce
there are around 40 private security companies in iraq and they all follow rules of engagment set out by there company in agreement with the Department of Defence...... however i must admit that they very basic compared to the military's version but stilll they all abide by them before opening fire..... these people are not given free run of the country to kill as and when they please, even though blackwater is renouned in the private military business for being cowboys but they are not the only ones.... and there office is not new like the title suggests they was one of the first private companies out here and knowing a few are very good proffesional people! as with all the companies in iraq... well ok maybe not all like the ones who dont provide enough security for there employees!


Finally someone understands!!! However I can't stress this enough....
Blackwater in Iraq falls under the Dept. of State, not the Dept. of Defense.
PMC's, specifically Blackwater in this case have a DOS contract.
That is a common misunderstanding with people.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Finally someone understands!!! However I can't stress this enough....
Blackwater in Iraq falls under the Dept. of State, not the Dept. of Defense.
PMC's, specifically Blackwater in this case have a DOS contract.
That is a common misunderstanding with people.

Apologises mate, i do understand they are state department, just forgetful as mine is a DoD contract... and Blackwater do carry some very important people in there missions so you cannot say to much bad about them as they are under the eye of scruitny of there clients everyday.....



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
No Apologises needed

It's just that other than the deaths of the contractors there really is not that much media focused on PMC in the mainstream news.....so where are all these people coming up with this "offensive" accusations?

They are not in any way shape or form killing innocent people...they do not act as a police force in Iraq, they are not doing special ops (whoever said that has a few loose screws). Blackwater is doinf protection for visiting diplomats and other key people.

Why hire PMC's instead of usinf what you already have?
I seriously do not know the full answer but I know this to be true:
-PMC's are self supportive
-Highly trained men who come from all walks and many backgrounds with
much experience in security (having done security details is aprerequiset for BW Iraq.)
-They have security clearances
-Unlike Federal Agents who normally do DOS protection details, the Contractors have more experience with combat and that type of enviorment.

Note: DOS federal agents for the most part get thier weapons training at the first of thier career and a little here and there. the PMC contractors have a career built on that kind of stuff and years of experience.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join