Blackwater: will McCain support them?

**Boyar Son** · October 16, 2008, 06:01 PM

Blackwater has powerful friends in gov't right now, secretive, and not under the strict rules of the US military. And gov't is paying them big.

Do you think mccain will support them, while he fights the war in iraq if he is president?

**Mikelus Trento** · October 16, 2008, 06:06 PM

Why are you wasting your time thinking about things if McCain would be President?

**Thanatos** · October 16, 2008, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

Why are you wasting your time thinking about things if McCain would be President?

Well, somebody's being confident.

But that aside, I hope neither president supports them. I despise mercenaries, because that's what they are. All this "contractor" and "PMC" stuff is just a euphemism.

**Ragabash** · October 25, 2008, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Well, somebody's being confident.

But that aside, I hope neither president supports them. I despise mercenaries, because that's what they are. All this "contractor" and "PMC" stuff is just a euphemism.

Too bad that U.S.A needs these mercenaries so badly it cannot afford to loose them. They know how to make money out of war, and don't hesitate to use their influence and American dependance to their benefit. It's neither a secret that organizations like these have same sort business attitude as any other indrusty to make sure their services and products are needed in the future.

It's either these guys or draft at the moment. And no president is going to propose something like that without a real threat to mainland or major conflict. Without major reforms I see very little chance that mercenary forces are going to have smaller importance. Quite the opposite in fact.

**Fianóglach** · October 25, 2008, 03:25 PM

I think some of you are mislead as to what exactly the role of private security is in Iraq, you seem to think that the U.S. government is paying these men to fight insurgents and act as agents of the state.
You are wrong.

Private Security Contracts awarded by the government (US or otherwise), to these companies are primarily for personal protection, travel, and property integrity. They operate defensively to protect individuals, buildings, and other 'its'. In no way do they act as soldiers do, in no way are they used as police, or as combat assets. In addition to the government contracts which are the largest, there are the actual private contracts which make up the bulk of work for these guys come from corporations,private individuals, both foreign and Iraqi who need security on a day to day basis to do their jobs. Anything from trucking companies driving toilet paper and water, to ambassadors and news media. The infrastructure is not yet in place to allow for safe travel freely around Iraq, and until that is in place Private Security must have a role. Unless you expect men and women in your countries uniform to provide private security for non-essentials to the detriment of the war.

**Mikelus Trento** · October 25, 2008, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Fianóglach

I think some of you are mislead as to what exactly the role of private security is in Iraq, you seem to think that the U.S. government is paying these men to fight insurgents and act as agents of the state.
You are wrong.

Private Security Contracts awarded by the government (US or otherwise), to these companies are primarily for personal protection, travel, and property integrity. They operate defensively to protect individuals, buildings, and other 'its'. In no way do they act as soldiers do, in no way are they used as police, or as combat assets. In addition to the government contracts which are the largest, there are the actual private contracts which make up the bulk of work for these guys come from corporations,private individuals, both foreign and Iraqi who need security on a day to day basis to do their jobs. Anything from trucking companies driving toilet paper and water, to ambassadors and news media. The infrastructure is not yet in place to allow for safe travel freely around Iraq, and until that is in place Private Security must have a role. Unless you expect men and women in your countries uniform to provide private security for non-essentials to the detriment of the war.

If we weren't in a place where so many people disliked us, they wouldn't need the security. Since they do, it's a military issue.

imo.

**Ragabash** · October 25, 2008, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Fianóglach

I think some of you are mislead as to what exactly the role of private security is in Iraq, you seem to think that the U.S. government is paying these men to fight insurgents and act as agents of the state.
You are wrong.

Private Security Contracts awarded by the government (US or otherwise), to these companies are primarily for personal protection, travel, and property integrity. They operate defensively to protect individuals, buildings, and other 'its'. In no way do they act as soldiers do, in no way are they used as police, or as combat assets. In addition to the government contracts which are the largest, there are the actual private contracts which make up the bulk of work for these guys come from corporations,private individuals, both foreign and Iraqi who need security on a day to day basis to do their jobs. Anything from trucking companies driving toilet paper and water, to ambassadors and news media. The infrastructure is not yet in place to allow for safe travel freely around Iraq, and until that is in place Private Security must have a role. Unless you expect men and women in your countries uniform to provide private security for non-essentials to the detriment of the war.

Blackwater is pretty much of an extension to U.S armed forces. They work much like regular armed forces of U.S.A with quite a lot same equipment and similiar training. There is no actual difference how these guys operate, other than that Blackwater is allowed to a certain limit of freedom how to operate. They operate both offensive and defensive level; what ever the contract says and bring in the cash.

What makes Blackwater suspicious and rather expensive is that 2/3 their contracts are no-bid contracts that ultimatelly gives Blackwater quite a lot power. Also the fact, that they need to give very little information of their operations gives them another important aspect; where American government is able to use them to conduct operations that are generally not wanted to associate with national personel "or to its flag".

Don't be fooled that "these guys" are out there to make the world a better place, they are after the green. And just like any business, they are not afraid to use their influence and American dependance to make a profit. Your well being is not their first priority, cash flow is. As long as the money comes in, you are but a number in their statics. Soldiers are expendable, civilians casulaties and wars opportunities.

**Boyar Son** · October 16, 2008, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

Why are you wasting your time thinking about things if McCain would be President?

hmm, something tells me...somehow..that you are not a fan of mccain?

**Mikelus Trento** · October 16, 2008, 06:14 PM

Obama has said nothing about any plans he has for Blackwater. I wish he would outlaw merc companies. Those guys cost MANY times more than the US military, which could serve the same function. And they are getting paid by US taxpayers.

Obama has said he will go through the budget line by line. Something tells me he will look at that line and mark a big red line through it. I think he has higher priorities than supporting Blackwater.

Now, to answer your question....which is senseless for me since it's not going to happen, would be that under McCain civilian mercs would gain increasing budgetary funding as a way to project American power around the globe without the stigma of the military. It is sneaky. As is he.

**hellheaven1987** · October 28, 2008, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

Obama has said nothing about any plans he has for Blackwater. I wish he would outlaw merc companies. Those guys cost MANY times more than the US military, which could serve the same function. And they are getting paid by US taxpayers.

Lol, you guys are just jealous about the pay of merc; if US Military is effective enough then why hire high-cost merc??

**touchmaster** · October 16, 2008, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

hmm, something tells me...somehow..that you are not a fan of mccain?

My feelings exactly.

**Erik** · October 17, 2008, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

Why are you wasting your time thinking about things if McCain would be President?

He could still win if a trained and hardened fighter from, say, a big military contractor put an "early end" to Obama's campaign.

**Mikelus Trento** · October 17, 2008, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Erik

He could still win if a trained and hardened fighter from, say, a big military contractor put an "early end" to Obama's campaign.

You know if something like that happened then Biden would step up?

And if the ol' guy's heart stopped ticking we are left with Miss Bubblehead.

Ponder well on both things.

**Erik** · October 17, 2008, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

You know if something like that happened then Biden would step up?

Biden who?
How many supporters does he have?

And if the ol' guy's heart stopped ticking we are left with Miss Bubblehead.

I'll bet Bubblehead can win from Obama, if that were to happen.
I've heard she's quite popular.

**The Dude** · October 17, 2008, 01:56 PM

I think Blackwater is one of the main arguments you could make for military obsession gone wild. It shares almost all characteristics with private regimes used by oppressive military dictators in the past, so I'm not really sure what justification a "freedom loving country" like the US would have for even employing PMC's in the first place.

Out with them. Now.