US Soldiers of Fortune in Iraq
26 March 2007, 09:10 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Soldiers of Fortune in Iraq
Apparently something like 25-40 thousand of them in Iraq hired by the US government - their deaths dont show up in the stats, and they're basically not bound by any laws!
Pretty crazy!
YouTube - Blackwater: Shadow Army
and
YouTube - Blackwater in Najaf 1 & 2
Pretty crazy!
YouTube - Blackwater: Shadow Army
and
YouTube - Blackwater in Najaf 1 & 2
27 March 2007, 01:20 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 2,446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched quite a good documentry not long back called shadow company. Loads of clips on you tube.
looks quite closely at the situation in iraq regarding private security firms, what they do aswell as other places they ahve worked.
Something was mentioned on it about the US army privatising allot of their logistics. The private security firms took on those roles.
YouTube - Shadow Company Trailer
looks quite closely at the situation in iraq regarding private security firms, what they do aswell as other places they ahve worked.
Something was mentioned on it about the US army privatising allot of their logistics. The private security firms took on those roles.
YouTube - Shadow Company Trailer
27 March 2007, 02:22 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
27 March 2007, 04:44 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see why we should get so heated up about soldiers of fortune. This country has given the world soldiers to fight in every cause willing to pay the highest price.
It was a sole way to earn a crust for the youngest son who was not to inherit pre 1700. Without there input over the Centuries the World map would not look the way it did.
Then all that training we give our troops and then they leave our armed services. What else can they do with all that knowledge and skills.
It was a sole way to earn a crust for the youngest son who was not to inherit pre 1700. Without there input over the Centuries the World map would not look the way it did.
Then all that training we give our troops and then they leave our armed services. What else can they do with all that knowledge and skills.
27 March 2007, 12:37 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill
Blackwater began in 1996 with a private military training camp "to fulfill the anticipated demand for government outsourcing." Today, its contacts run from deep inside the military and intelligence agencies to the upper echelons of the White House. It has secured a status as the elite Praetorian Guard for the global war on terror, with the largest private military base in the world, a fleet of 20 aircraft and 20,000 soldiers at the ready. From Iraq and Afghanistan to the hurricane-ravaged streets of New Orleans to meetings with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger about responding to disasters in California, Blackwater now envisions itself as the FedEx of defense and homeland security operations. Such power in the hands of one company, run by a neo-crusader bankroller of the president, embodies the "military-industrial complex" President Eisenhower warned against in 1961.
Last edited by Bravo2zero_sps; 27 March 2007 at 12:43 PM.
Trending Topics
27 March 2007, 01:31 PM
#9
Its the price a country pays for not sticking their hands in their pocket to finance an adequate standing armed forces.
27 March 2007, 02:22 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wellingborough
Posts: 1,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good friend of mine left the marines after doing a tour of duty in afghanistan on 18000 pounds a year. This was at the time the the fire brigade were on strike for not getting 30000 pounds.He know gets paid very well for looking after a foreign diplomat in Kabul. How can anybody have a problem with that. He's done his bit for queen and country soldiering is his profesion and there are people abroad that need protection so it's fair play in my book !! Conterary to what people believe most private protection teams are protecting people commited to the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan teams of engineers rebuilding schools powerstations and foreign diplomats commited to the negotiation table.
27 March 2007, 02:24 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
War is war, death is one of the end results, to try and maintain minimum casualties limits your decision making and costs more life in the end, keep politics and human rights out of war. There is no honourable death, its messy, and at times slow and you have lost what you ever have your existence.
The victor go the spoils and write history as they see fit. To go fight anyone and look to kill less, damage less, flies in the course of end result. You are either there to win or not bother. Atrocities are in all campaigns on all sides, to start politicising or say who or cannot fight for money, for resources, for land, goes against any reason humans go to war in the first place.
You can never change the human race, you can talk yourself to death or start the UN. But what do they accomplish they will still be writing about it long after we step off. The UN are not decisive they don't lead or prevent death. They go to country and start playing by the rules and watch on as people die. But at least they can admit they followed the rules, they must sleep better.
28 March 2007, 11:33 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the main issue, why go to war and then get your hands tied behind your back. If Law is not being used on both sides I don't see why one side should, how you behave is a result of how your enemy behave. And any convention is not their in the atmosphere of battle.
War is war, death is one of the end results, to try and maintain minimum casualties limits your decision making and costs more life in the end, keep politics and human rights out of war. There is no honourable death, its messy, and at times slow and you have lost what you ever have your existence.
The victor go the spoils and write history as they see fit. To go fight anyone and look to kill less, damage less, flies in the course of end result. You are either there to win or not bother. Atrocities are in all campaigns on all sides, to start politicising or say who or cannot fight for money, for resources, for land, goes against any reason humans go to war in the first place.
You can never change the human race, you can talk yourself to death or start the UN. But what do they accomplish they will still be writing about it long after we step off. The UN are not decisive they don't lead or prevent death. They go to country and start playing by the rules and watch on as people die. But at least they can admit they followed the rules, they must sleep better.
War is war, death is one of the end results, to try and maintain minimum casualties limits your decision making and costs more life in the end, keep politics and human rights out of war. There is no honourable death, its messy, and at times slow and you have lost what you ever have your existence.
The victor go the spoils and write history as they see fit. To go fight anyone and look to kill less, damage less, flies in the course of end result. You are either there to win or not bother. Atrocities are in all campaigns on all sides, to start politicising or say who or cannot fight for money, for resources, for land, goes against any reason humans go to war in the first place.
You can never change the human race, you can talk yourself to death or start the UN. But what do they accomplish they will still be writing about it long after we step off. The UN are not decisive they don't lead or prevent death. They go to country and start playing by the rules and watch on as people die. But at least they can admit they followed the rules, they must sleep better.
What you seem to be advocating however is totally selfish and murderous behaviour or dragging your own principles down to those of a completely unprincipled enemy. There is a code of practice including that of the Geneva Convention. It is accepted of course that destroying an enemy's military capabilities will usually include loss of life. It is fair to defend your own life however one has to do so. Deliberate murder is not acceptable though.
Would you advocate the killing and vicious torture of prisoners of war? It would have been morally wrong to have done that to Japanese prisoners in WW2 despite the inhumane treatment of our own men.
It is also worth remembering that when a war is over, you have to face up to the way you conducted it. Is it worth the shame of such bad behaviour?
Les
28 March 2007, 12:33 PM
#18
Les,
You are of course right with the idea that we should not lower our principles and ideals to that of the enemy. However, things have, in my honest opinon, swung too far in the opposite direction, with our ability to conduct warfighting being hindered at every turn by having to apply UK and EU law in situations that it was obviously not planned to be used in.
The political and legal minefield commanders have to now tip-toe through is horrific - with the "political adivisors" that are suppled by the FCO, in my opinion, doing nothing more than protecting the reputation of the politicians regardless of how that affects the military campaign or how many soldiers must die in order to prevent a bit of bad press.
Thats not entirely a criticism of those individuals that fill those roles from the FCO, as I have got on well with most of them - but I do not envy their job.
You are of course right with the idea that we should not lower our principles and ideals to that of the enemy. However, things have, in my honest opinon, swung too far in the opposite direction, with our ability to conduct warfighting being hindered at every turn by having to apply UK and EU law in situations that it was obviously not planned to be used in.
The political and legal minefield commanders have to now tip-toe through is horrific - with the "political adivisors" that are suppled by the FCO, in my opinion, doing nothing more than protecting the reputation of the politicians regardless of how that affects the military campaign or how many soldiers must die in order to prevent a bit of bad press.
Thats not entirely a criticism of those individuals that fill those roles from the FCO, as I have got on well with most of them - but I do not envy their job.
28 March 2007, 01:11 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 March 2007, 04:29 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets look at this Leslie, I would have no great deal of thought to take out a house holding a sniper which had been firing on my position. If there are civilians caught up in the debri, its war. I look at defending my troops and myself first.
So where does this hold in Law, as I said Law ain't there. War is to gain your objective and minimise your losses. If you start deciding what can or not happen we may as well not be there, that's my point.
If I felt calling in a air strike to clear out a village or building saved me casualties, the target is getting hit. There is no such thing as restricted war, its all out or its pointless.
Either you can do what your enemy does, especially in guerilla fighting or your going to lose a lot of troops, just look at the figures of deaths and casualties of troops after Sadam fall. I do not feel justice or qualms should restrain your judgement call, if you do you will always lose this battle. I would rather be alive and home bloody handed with my mates safe than home defeated and lost my mates because a felt it wrong to take out a house or have civilian casualties as a result.
But in the atmosphere of a court of justice or home safe, I feel this call or decision would be easier to make or justify. But in reality of battle I feel after a few deaths you would feel it totally unacceptable to restrict yourself in such a way. But if you could write or look the family in the eye of friends you lost due to your decision not to commit a strike well that's you, it ain't me.
So where does this hold in Law, as I said Law ain't there. War is to gain your objective and minimise your losses. If you start deciding what can or not happen we may as well not be there, that's my point.
If I felt calling in a air strike to clear out a village or building saved me casualties, the target is getting hit. There is no such thing as restricted war, its all out or its pointless.
Either you can do what your enemy does, especially in guerilla fighting or your going to lose a lot of troops, just look at the figures of deaths and casualties of troops after Sadam fall. I do not feel justice or qualms should restrain your judgement call, if you do you will always lose this battle. I would rather be alive and home bloody handed with my mates safe than home defeated and lost my mates because a felt it wrong to take out a house or have civilian casualties as a result.
But in the atmosphere of a court of justice or home safe, I feel this call or decision would be easier to make or justify. But in reality of battle I feel after a few deaths you would feel it totally unacceptable to restrict yourself in such a way. But if you could write or look the family in the eye of friends you lost due to your decision not to commit a strike well that's you, it ain't me.
28 March 2007, 04:49 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bram, my memory of the GCs and laws of war is a bit hazy, but the situations you describe are more or less acceptable; something to do with the proportionate military gain as perceived at the time. What isn't acceptable, which you seemed to be advocating in your earlier post, is for example bussing out all males over twelve and machine-gunning them as they might become enemy soldiers in the next few years. Or raping the enemy women to produce new soldiers in 15 yrs time. Your idea of all-out war does not go as far as others - you may be relieved to hear.
Prasius - I'd like to know what EU law has to do with restricting our soldiers' behaviour in combat, I think you'll find here people are more discussing the GCs and subsequent ICC. I get bored with stupid people EU-bashing. (Intelligent people EU-bashing is quite acceptable however.)
Prasius - I'd like to know what EU law has to do with restricting our soldiers' behaviour in combat, I think you'll find here people are more discussing the GCs and subsequent ICC. I get bored with stupid people EU-bashing. (Intelligent people EU-bashing is quite acceptable however.)
Last edited by Brendan Hughes; 28 March 2007 at 04:51 PM.
28 March 2007, 05:12 PM
#24
The ICC is largely irrelevant to a soldier of a "reasonable country". The ICC only becomes relevant when it can be proved that the soldiers country is unable, or unwilling to investigate, and if required, prosecute, in a manner that reaches certain standards.
An example of EU law dictating how UK Armed Forces act in Combat.. - the example I shall use is regarding prisioner handling/detention. Due to the fact that a prisioner is held in a detention centre controlled and ran by British Armed Forces, the EU has ruled that UK law regarding the treatment of Prisioners, and the various laws regarding the protection of Human Rights, apply, regardless of the fact that the individual, nor the Prision, is a national of, or located in a EU country.
Basically - regardless of the nationality or location of an enemy; due to the fact we are British Forces, we are constrained by UK and EU law - otherwise the individual is able to take HMG to the European Courts of Human Rights (as these things usually fall into the catagory of Human Rights) - and Win.
The GC's have become largely pointless, due to national and international law providing far greater protection than the GC's ever have. Anyhow - they're only really relevent in protecting uniformed personel serving in a recognised force; "resistance forces" and individuals operating in civillian clothes have very little protection at all.
An example of EU law dictating how UK Armed Forces act in Combat.. - the example I shall use is regarding prisioner handling/detention. Due to the fact that a prisioner is held in a detention centre controlled and ran by British Armed Forces, the EU has ruled that UK law regarding the treatment of Prisioners, and the various laws regarding the protection of Human Rights, apply, regardless of the fact that the individual, nor the Prision, is a national of, or located in a EU country.
Basically - regardless of the nationality or location of an enemy; due to the fact we are British Forces, we are constrained by UK and EU law - otherwise the individual is able to take HMG to the European Courts of Human Rights (as these things usually fall into the catagory of Human Rights) - and Win.
The GC's have become largely pointless, due to national and international law providing far greater protection than the GC's ever have. Anyhow - they're only really relevent in protecting uniformed personel serving in a recognised force; "resistance forces" and individuals operating in civillian clothes have very little protection at all.
Last edited by Prasius; 28 March 2007 at 05:25 PM.
28 March 2007, 05:35 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Thanks for the education 
Did you see this when I first posted it?
The Single European Tank: EU Referendum
Did you see this when I first posted it?
The Single European Tank: EU Referendum
28 March 2007, 05:44 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bram, there's also such a thing as winning the battle and losing the war. If one is prepared to use any level of force and willing to tolerate any number of innocent deaths and summary executions, immune from prosecution, you move further from any sort of political or negotiated settlement as the opposition unites against you and vows to avenge deaths they consider to be unjust. Even now the Japanese don't have normal relations with China and Korea because of the barbaric way the Japanese military treated the citizens of those countries under occupation.
If you lose the moral high ground then you become as bad as those who use any means against you.
If you lose the moral high ground then you become as bad as those who use any means against you.
28 March 2007, 05:46 PM
#27
Unfortunatly, due to what I do, I have far too much knowledge of the legal pitfalls of the various Human Rights legislation we have to abide by, and the Regulation of Investagatory Powers Act (RIPA), than is really right for someone of my limited education 
I do like telling people though - as its often an eye opener to them that we have to comply with some pretty bizarre laws to ensure we don't hurt the feelings of individuals who want to cut out heads off with blunt knives!
I do like telling people though - as its often an eye opener to them that we have to comply with some pretty bizarre laws to ensure we don't hurt the feelings of individuals who want to cut out heads off with blunt knives!
28 March 2007, 06:57 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Executions where did any of my posts state executions or raping. I think your own judgement was replacing what I stated. I stated solely to be allowed to fight even handed and not be restricted.
Moral high ground don't help when your buried 6 foot under.
That's the issue, do not let politics direct wars or let EU make a takeover of a democratic country by the back door. Either the services are fit to decide what we can or not do or we don't do nothing its that simple. You cannot ask someone to lay their life on the line under restrictive practices its unfair and must breach their Human Rights at least (well at least some EU legislation must cover it, it covers everything else).
A still blame the Flower power generation, and there still tripping but making the decisions that we now live by, but please feel superior due to feeling morally right. Woop woop for the moral minority.
Moral high ground don't help when your buried 6 foot under.
That's the issue, do not let politics direct wars or let EU make a takeover of a democratic country by the back door. Either the services are fit to decide what we can or not do or we don't do nothing its that simple. You cannot ask someone to lay their life on the line under restrictive practices its unfair and must breach their Human Rights at least (well at least some EU legislation must cover it, it covers everything else).
A still blame the Flower power generation, and there still tripping but making the decisions that we now live by, but please feel superior due to feeling morally right. Woop woop for the moral minority.
28 March 2007, 09:09 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where did anyone mention raping? I think your own judgement was replacing what was stated 
Seriously though, if personnel from these private security services companies operate outside of the law (and they are not subject to Iraqi law !!) then they know they can act with impunity. No-one is going to hold them to account so whether they kill an Iraqi because they are in imminent and mortal danger, or whether they just take a dislike of them is largely irrelevant. They can act as judge and jury. Call it gut instinct, but I'm sure that in that theatre of operation and given the daily threat posed, there will have been many instances where the decision to shoot first and ask questions later has been made much simpler by knowing nobody's going to be asking any questions anyway.
Seriously though, if personnel from these private security services companies operate outside of the law (and they are not subject to Iraqi law !!) then they know they can act with impunity. No-one is going to hold them to account so whether they kill an Iraqi because they are in imminent and mortal danger, or whether they just take a dislike of them is largely irrelevant. They can act as judge and jury. Call it gut instinct, but I'm sure that in that theatre of operation and given the daily threat posed, there will have been many instances where the decision to shoot first and ask questions later has been made much simpler by knowing nobody's going to be asking any questions anyway.
29 March 2007, 01:15 AM
#30
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice one haha, legionarres were tuff , but they got their asses kicked fae the algerian warlord u mind, i cant mind his name
they have a new film called days of glory it woz nominated for an award, im trynna get a copy, looks good
im glad the soldiers of fortune r their, mujahideen can target practice their brains and body parts and send them in bodybags ameen and anyone who tries tae milk the country of iraq