Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, that's not my point at all.
My point is your conclusions are too broad and often rooted in more bias than fact. Which is fine. This is a chat board.
It is necessary, however, for that to be pointed out from time to time lest others here wander into the ludicrous notion your beliefs about what's going on over there are unadultereated fact. They are not. I'm just 'checking' you.
We hire the Blackwater mercenaries (they are a variety of that) to perform a limited service, and from what I've read, they are not filling in traditional soldiers roles. They are trained in security, not to advance military interests.
But you're right. Only a fool would argue they don;t step over the line. That point I concede. But whether they're hired to step over the line and act as soldiers? No. I don't agree. I think you want that to be the case because of your political views, but it isn't.
|
Fact: The number of Blackwater and other mercenaries we have hired exceeds the total troop commitment of all other countries, including England, in Iraq. The numbers are close, but with the in progress British withdrawal, Blackwater wins. A coalition of the willing, indeed.
As to security, give me marines any day - they are young and green enough to be willing to die for the mission, and they are likely to be motivated by patriotism more than money. Paid merceneries are just that - mercenary. In terms of security, merceneries have always been questionable security risks - if they'll kill for hire for you, they'll do it for someone else, too.
