Foreign troops, Mercenaries and Defence Contractors.

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#181

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

Are you in Iraq fighting right now?[/quote]

A better question would be ‘are you in a position where you could be asked to fight in Iraq now’. If you simply ask if they are actually fighting, then you end up labelling a huge number of people as hypocrites for supporting the Iraq war and not there at the moment.

For example, the Royal Marines took part in a helicopter and amphibious assault on the Al-Faw peninsular to secure the oil fields there. They are not there fighting, but have fought already in this conflict.

I will be begin my service later this year. I supported the Iraq action (I thought it was late - desert fox was the time to eliminate Saddam, by proper military action, not just bombing things). If I am not deployed to Iraq, that does not make me a hypocrite. It merely means that Higher Authority has chosen not to send my unit there. If I am ordered, and refuse to go, despite my support for the war, then I am a hypocrite. Similarly, if I criticise others for not being part of the Armed Forces, then I had better have a very good reason for not being a member if I am not.

So, in summary:
The better question is ‘Are you a serving member of the Armed Forces, and if not, why not?’

Standby flaming…
Carry On!

#182

So I take it that you are a foul-mouth sissy who is not fighting in Iraq and not called Blair to complain about British involvement in Iraq? What mistakes do parents make to produce your kind? I cannot imagine. Seriously![/quote]

I don’t think that he’s actually been foul-mouthed in his post, accusatory possibly, cutting definitely, but he’s not used profanity either directly nor masked to escape any possible word censor.

But it appears that he’s attending the HAC ball which tends to be for military personnel, and is sponsored by the RGBW so will be commissioned at a later date.

I fail to see what mistakes his parents may have made when they have brought the gentleman up to be studious, educated and willing to serve in his country’s armed forces.

Personally I find the idea of a sense of duty commendable.

#183

Why did you ask me such a cheezy question anyway? What is your sissy-assed motive?

Tell us what unit you are in that allows you to carry a laptop and use it between search & destroy missions. Didn’t you say you are in the British military? Do you have a desk job? Some other job that requires you to say in Britain? So you’re not a rifle-toting foot soldier afterall???

Now, you really do need to stop asking me that ridiculous, pointless question.

#184

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

Why did you ask me such a cheezy question anyway? What is your sissy-assed motive?

Tell us what unit you are in that allows you to carry a laptop and use it between search & destroy missions. Didn’t you say you are in the British military? Do you have a desk job? Some other job that requires you to say in Britain? So you’re not a rifle-toting foot soldier afterall???

Now, you really do need to stop asking me that ridiculous, pointless question.[/quote]

Now you’ve established just how little you know, thank you. Every British camp in Iraq had internet access for the lads, usually four or five machines in a portacabin by the welfare phones.

I have what is described as a desk job (Telecoms Tech in the Royal Corps of Signals), didn’t stop me getting mortared 80 or 90 times in 3 weeks last summer (thanks to your wonderful army of rifle toting foot soldiers attacking sacred sites and stirring up the natives). It’s always fun climbing telegraph poles in 50-60 Centigrade heat in body armour and helmet to repair phone cables broken by shrapnel and wondering if the next attack is going to come in while you’re 20 feet up a ladder.

So, why didn’t you join up tin-walt?

Oh - for the record I didn’t support the war, but I still deployed with my unit last year. At least I can stand by my record of service. Care to share yours?

#185

So, you are questioning my patriotism by asking me why I am not in the US military service, when you did not support your country going to war. So you are a soldier, but you don’t want to go fight your nation’s wars. You want your desk job, but you wonder why I am not in Iraq with a gun in my hand. Or was it that you were given no choice, but did not want to go fight it? Maybe you did not support the war, but were forced to deploy, but you want to know why I support the war, but did join the military? Maybe you did not suppot the war, but you elected to go shoot insurgents anyway and want to know why I support the war, but do not want to go shoot insurgents?

:roll:

#186

So, you are questioning my patriotism by asking me why I am not in the US military service, when you did not support your country going to war. So you are a soldier, but you don’t want to go fight your nation’s wars. You want your desk job, but you wonder why I am not in Iraq with a gun in my hand.

:roll:[/quote]

Not supporting ones Governments decision to go to war, and still taking part is called discipline,
Do you honestly believe every American soldier in Iraq supports the war?
A soldier’s job is to go where sent by lawful authority, not to believe in every decision that authority takes.
To quote Robert Heinlein :
The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not.

#187

So, you are questioning my patriotism by asking me why I am not in the US military service, when you did not support your country going to war. So you are a soldier, but you don’t want to go fight your nation’s wars. You want your desk job, but you wonder why I am not in Iraq with a gun in my hand.

:roll:[/quote]

I didn’t support the war because of the way it was presented - Saddam was never a threat to us or the US and he was never anything to do with Al-Qaeda. Despite that, I went and I did my bit as best I could. I saw some things that I hope I will never see again (although I did dream about them often enough). So I’ll ask you again, why didn’t you join up, coward?

#188

Robert Heinlein is wrong. Citizenship is a responsibility, and citizen participation is also a way of accepting responsibility for their nation’s safety, albiet by different means. The Romans pioneered that philosophy a very long time ago, and it is all the more true today. Citizens (civilians?) have a responsibility to provide the workforce and morale to support their nation, and that is certainly a contribution to their nation’s safety. That is precicely what brought down the Soviet Union - the American worker. Our nation’s government got involved in an arms race that cost both sides trillions of dollars. The Soviets simply could not keep up with the US’s ability to spend money for arms. The result was that the economy of the Soviet Union collapsed. The American worker provided that money with muscle and moral support to bring about that collapse. Don’t listen to Robert Heinlein any more.

I am sure that there are some soldiers in the US military that do not support the war. I can tell you this however. I have seen numerous interviews with US soldiers who did go to the war, many of whom have lost a limb or an eye, or the ability to walk or use a limb. Some have lost both legs. Every single one of them were asked by their interviewers if they support the war and if they regret having gone in light of their terrible injuries. Every single one of them answered with (paraphrased ofcourse) “Yes. I would go back into combat if I were able. I would do it all over again.”

I know of only one US soldier who said in an interview that they did not support the war, and the press (asswipes of the world that they are) has been desperately seeking US soldiers to say on camera that they did not support the war and did not want to go fight it! I think that is pretty impressive.

It really is pointless for you to ask me why I am not in the military. Not everyone can or wishes to be in the military. If everyone were, there would not be a workforce to support anyone in the nation. I can only imagine that you ask the question for the purpose of trying to demean me in some way. But the question, answered this way or that cannot do that. The money I pay in taxes to my goventment puts weapons in the hands of the men who are inclined for one reason or another to be soldiers, and thier soldiering provides me with the safety to continue providing my taxes. If you are wanting to imply that I am not a soldier because I lack partiotism, you would be incorrect. I am quite patriotic.

It is ridiculous to think that because a person persues ambitions in life that do not include soldiering, that they are a coward. You don’t know enough about me to call me a coward. I have proven many times in my life that I posess bravery. Just for fun I’ll tell you a little story. I once stood up on the rungs of a barstool and told the meanest man in a city sitting at the other end of the bar in a very loud voice that everyone could not help but hear, a VERY large man who once fought 8 cops at once and whiped all of them and was not arrested until the next day, that he was a "big fat son-of-a-biotch and I’d whoop his ass if he talked to me like that again. He made a comment about me because I ruled the pool table for numerous games in a row. No, I was not drunk. I am not a large man either. I had perhaps 2 beers and barely had a buzz. And no, I do not typically hang out in bars, and I do not patronize those which are frequented by such mindless thugs. I just happened to go there for a beer as I was passing it by. Was it follish to do what I did? Perhaps. I just don’t take smack from anyone. Nobody at all. Period. Now, perhaps he did not come at me because he figured it was not worth it to kick my azz. Perhaps he was shocked or amused. Maybe he thought I had a small .25 calibre auto in my pocket. I could care less.

However, you do not know me, and your comment that I am a coward it simply insolence. I would venture to say that it is more cowardice to call someone a coward than to not. I do not have to be a soldier to not be a coward. Your implication that I am a coward because I chose another avenue for my life other than soldiering is offensive, narrow-minded, and insiolent.

#189

Robert Heinlein is wrong. Citizenship is a responsibility, and citizen participation is also a way of accepting responsibility for their nation’s safety, albiet by different means. The Romans pioneered that philosophy a very long time ago, and it is all the more true today. Citizens (civilians?) have a responsibility to provide the workforce and morale to support their nation, and that is certainly a contribution to their nation’s safety. That is precicely what brought down the Soviet Union - the American worker. Our nation’s government got involved in an arms race that cost both sides trillions of dollars. The Soviets simply could not keep up with the US’s ability to spend money for arms. The result was that the economy of the Soviet Union collapsed. The American worker provided that money with muscle and moral support to bring about that collapse. Don’t listen to Robert Heinlein any more.

I am sure that there are some soldiers in the US military that do not support the war. I can tell you this however. I have seen numerous interviews with US soldiers who did go to the war, many of whom have lost a limb or an eye, or the ability to walk or use a limb. Some have lost both legs. Every single one of them were asked by their interviewers if they support the war and if they regret having gone in light of their terrible injuries. Every single one of them answered with (paraphrased ofcourse) “Yes. I would go back into combat if I were able. I would do it all over again.”

I know of only one US soldier who said in an interview that they did not support the war, and the press (asswipes of the world that they are) has been desperately seeking US soldiers to say on camera that they did not support the war and did not want to go fight it! I think that is pretty impressive.

It really is pointless for you to ask me why I am not in the military. Not everyone can or wishes to be in the military. If everyone were, there would not be a workforce to support anyone in the nation. I can only imagine that you ask the question for the purpose of trying to demean me in some way. But the question, answered this way or that cannot do that. The money I pay in taxes to my goventment puts weapons in the hands of the men who are inclined for one reason or another to be soldiers, and thier soldiering provides me with the safety to continue providing my taxes. If you are wanting to imply that I am not a soldier because I lack partiotism, you would be incorrect. I am quite patriotic.[/quote]

To deal with your last point first, you seem, once again, to have confused me with someone else.
I have never asked you why you are not in the military.
Why would I, since I am, myself, a civilian?
As for the rest of your post, I don’t disagree that the civilian population plays its part in the defence of the country.
I believe the key word in Heinlein’s statement is “personal”.
The civilian population takes a corporate responsibility.
In risking his life, the soldier’s responsibility becomes personal in a way that the civilian’s is not.

(edited to replace the part of the post I managed to accidentally delete)

#190

Considering you have spent the last few weeks since I registered on here telling me (and others) that I belong to an Army of cowards (who hide behind Gurkhas because they are a different colour), that I am wrong about the way we are trained to fight (the assault rifles at 600m thing), that I am a poor soldier because I don’t agree with the war on terror (a laughable name considering the amount of money contributed in the US to the IRA), that I am a desk soldier who is afraid to fight (despite the fact that I have been to some of the most dangerous places in the world during my time in the Army - Basra, various dodgy parts of Belfast, Londonderry, Armagh etc), do you not find yourself calling me narrow-minded and offensive a tad hypocritical?

I am a “desk soldier”, however in the Britsh Army you are considered a soldier first and a trade second. I’ve put my life on the line many times in one way or another because of my job, so have some of the other people on here that you regularly insult. I’ve been mortared, RPG’d, shot at, bombed and under Katyusha rocket attack, and you call me a coward afraid to go to war? I went to war inspite of not agreeing to it, because I believe in duty. I didn’t sign up to go to war if I agreed to it, I signed up to go to war if I was told to. I’d go back to Iraq tomorrow if ordered (in fact, I wasn’t supposed to go last year due to a knee injury - I argued with my boss until he let me go so that I wouldn’t let my mates down) because it’s my duty.

How dare you, someone who has never, for a single day of your life, worn uniform or defended your country or your beliefs call me a coward afraid to lose my desk job?

#191

Once more, you are attempting to twist the truth. I did not create the subject. I only gave my opinion of it in an ongoing discussion. That is what has promted you to go after me tooth and nail. I have asked you not to brign it up with me again, but you continue. You cannot change my opinion with attempts to belittle or demean me, nor can you do it by twisting the truth.

Yet here you are again, going at me about it, dredging it up. :roll:

#192

Once more, you are attempting to twist the truth. I did not create the subject. I only gave my opinion of it in an ongoing discussion. That is what has promted you to go after me tooth and nail. I have asked you not to brign it up with me again, but you continue. You cannot change my opinion with attempts to belittle or demean me, nor can you do it by twisting the truth.

Yet here you are again, going at me about it, dredging it up. :roll:[/quote]

No matter who brought the subject up, you have repeatedly claimed that the British Army (widely regarded as the best army in the world, and constantly on operational duty somewhere in the world for the last 200 odd years) is made up of cowards. You have ignored serveral attempts by people to tell you that your opinion is wrong (I even posted what a Gurkha thought of what you said, you ignored it because, apparently, you know better than him), as you continue to ignore people who know better than you on every subject that you have contributed to.

As that is the only part of my post that you seem to disagree with, a simple sorry for your earlier post will suffice.

#193

Once more, you are attempting to twist the truth. I did not create the subject. I only gave my opinion of it in an ongoing discussion. That is what has promted you to go after me tooth and nail. I have asked you not to brign it up with me again, but you continue. You cannot change my opinion with attempts to belittle or demean me, nor can you do it by twisting the truth.

Yet here you are again, going at me about it, dredging it up. :roll:[/quote]

No matter who brought the subject up, you have repeatedly claimed that the British Army (widely regarded as the best army in the world, and constantly on operational duty somewhere in the world for the last 200 odd years) is made up of cowards. You have ignored serveral attempts by people to tell you that your opinion is wrong (I even posted what a Gurkha thought of what you said, you ignored it because, apparently, you know better than him), as you continue to ignore people who know better than you on every subject that you have contributed to.

As that is the only part of my post that you seem to disagree with, a simple sorry for your earlier post will suffice.[/quote]

You are again attempting to change my opinion of that subject. I have an opinion, I have asked you not to bring the matter up. You will not change it. That subject is like determining whether steel is stronger than aluminium. There is a clear-cut answer to that. You are attempting to demean me because of my opinion. There is no answer to that. Only my opinion. Your attempts to change my opinion will forevery be in vain. Why you do not accept that and move on can only be considered obstinance, perhaps a desire to mask guilt. I don’t really know what your motivation is. All I know is that it is fruitless and will forever gain you nothing.

Let’s see how long you keep bringing up the Gurkhas. :roll:

#194

Quite right, not everyone can serve in the armed forces full time.

But National Service, (the Draft,) enabled the majority of males to serve their country in some way within the military.
Of course there were a number of draft-dodgers who fled overseas or remained in further education to avoid their duty.
The most notable being Slick Willy, who became I believe the first ever President of the United States never to have served his country.

Some countries have permitted National Service to be served in non-military organisations such as Civil Defence or the Police.

After one’s term of giving something to the nation the majority of draftees could start or continue a career in the workforce.

Once again a quote from an American gentleman:

“I could have gone to Canada,
I could have stayed in school.
But I was brought up differently,
I couldn’t break the rules.”

Edited to add the verse.

#195

I’m trying to change nothing, you know nothing of the subject upon which you continue to give an opinion (a recurring theme of many of your posts), I couldn’t care less what someone who has never served their country thinks of the people who do serve their countries. You are entitled to your opinion on any subject thanks to far better men than yourself, who would probably turn in their graves at the way you denigrate certain military units and entire armies.

I await the apology for your earlier post with bated breath (and a due sense of foreboding at the pointless trolling reply that you will actually give to this) - you could also answer the other points I brought up in reply to your post?

#196

I’m trying to change nothing, you know nothing of the subject upon which you continue to give an opinion (a recurring theme of many of your posts), I couldn’t care less what someone who has never served their country thinks of the people who do serve their countries. You are entitled to your opinion on any subject thanks to far better men than yourself, who would probably turn in their graves at the way you denigrate certain military units and entire armies.

I await the apology for your earlier post with bated breath (and a due sense of foreboding at the pointless trolling reply that you will actually give to this) - you could also answer the other points I brought up in reply to your post?[/quote]

BDL,
Since Ironman has now convinced himself that you and I are one and the same person, perhaps I should state my position on this matter.
As i have stated elsewhere, I have not served in the military.
I didn’t think I would be particularly good at it, and I’m a lazy sod at heart :slight_smile:
My interest in things military is familial (paternal grandfather and my father served respectively in the two spots of bother we had with the Germans), and academic.
I do, however, have a small knowledge of the British Army, albeit at second hand, and am fortunate to number among my acquaintances (I wouldn’t claim the honour of friendship) a fairly senior ex-Officer of Gurkhas, once a Regimental Colonel and subsequently, as a Brigadier, Britain’s Military Attache in India.
As a result of conversations with him and others, I am only too well aware of the depth of feeling Gurkha Officers have for “their Gurkhas”.
As for the rest, while I am no Walt, I do, in common with, I believe, most Brits, have an admiration for the men and women who serve in a way I felt unable to do.

#197

I we are the same person, we’re a right fat bastard, since you’re in Scotland and I’m in Dorset :wink:

I’ve been lucky enough to work with the Queen’s Gurkha Signals in the past at our depot, I love the little crazy bastards. They are, without exception, brilliant lads to work with and to be round. They work hard, they rarely complain and they love being in the Army. I asked the one who is on my course (I’m on my Class One trade course at the minute) what he thought of TW’s comments the other day, most of his reply would be enough to get me banned from here. I posted about this somewhere, but for some reason TW has chosen to ignore that reply?

#198

Quite right, not everyone can serve in the armed forces full time.

But National Service, (the Draft,) enabled the majority of males to serve their country in some way within the military.
Of course there were a number of draft-dodgers who fled overseas or remained in further education to avoid their duty.
The most notable being Slick Willy, who became I believe the first ever President of the United States never to have served his country.

Some countries have permitted National Service to be served in non-military organisations such as Civil Defence or the Police.

After one’s term of giving something to the nation the majority of draftees could start or continue a career in the workforce.

Once again a quote from an American gentleman:

“I could have gone to Canada,
I could have stayed in school.
But I was brought up differently,
I couldn’t break the rules.”

Edited to add the verse.[/quote]

Why don’t you start your own country and put that in place.

#199

From todays Daily Telegraph

Shootings may lead to security guard curb
By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad
(Filed: 11/06/2005)

Iraq’s interior ministry said yesterday it wanted to impose legal boundaries on the private security business after American contractors twice opened fire on US marines.

The move may be supported by the US military, whose patience with the contractors has been tested.

They were angered by an incident late last month in Fallujah, the former insurgent stronghold recaptured by US forces last year.

The marines say one of their combat teams came under fire from guards in a convoy of four-wheel-drives belonging to Zapata Engineering, a firm based in North Carolina that is involved in reconstruction projects.

A marine observation post was fired at three hours later by the same convoy, according to Lt Col Dave Lapan, a marines spokesman.

The contractors’ vehicles were eventually stopped by metal spikes in the road.

Soldiers promptly arrested the security men, including 16 Americans and three Iraqis, who were placed in a detention centre. They have since been sent home.

The Zapata employees have admitted firing at civilian vehicles but deny targeting marines. They said that while in custody they were physically and emotionally abused.

The lawyer, Mark Schopper, who is representing two of the contractors, claims that at one point a marine shouted at the men: “How does it feel to be a rich contractor now?”

Soldiers have for some time been angered by the salaries earned by the estimated 20,000 armed contractors working in Iraq, many of whom are ex-servicemen.

It is common for them to earn £750 a day. They provide protection for senior government officials and reconstruction projects.

They are even more unpopular with Iraqis. Interior ministry officials say at least 12 Iraqi civilians are killed by contractors every week in the capital.

“Enough is enough,” said an official at the interior ministry. “We are looking at ways to tighten weapons licenses, and to punish the worst cases. The culture of impunity must stop.”

A senior member of one private security firm in Baghdad said: “Like it or not we are combatants. If our guarantees are removed, we would have to leave.”

Slightly worrying that they see themselves as “combatants”, or is that just me?

#200

Quite right, not everyone can serve in the armed forces full time.

But National Service, (the Draft,) enabled the majority of males to serve their country in some way within the military.
Of course there were a number of draft-dodgers who fled overseas or remained in further education to avoid their duty.
The most notable being Slick Willy, who became I believe the first ever President of the United States never to have served his country.

Some countries have permitted National Service to be served in non-military organisations such as Civil Defence or the Police.

After one’s term of giving something to the nation the majority of draftees could start or continue a career in the workforce.

Once again a quote from an American gentleman:

“I could have gone to Canada,
I could have stayed in school.
But I was brought up differently,
I couldn’t break the rules.”

Edited to add the verse.[/quote]

Why don’t you start your own country and put that in place.[/quote]

Set up my own country ?
Whatever for ?

The United States had draft registration in effect until 1975 although conscription had ended a couple of years prior to that due to the necessity for so many soldiers having been abruptly curtailed.
If I recall correctly, and I am happy to stand corrected, the registration system for the draft was reinstated in 1980 under the Democratic administration of President Carter.

I don’t understand the purpose of your post, could you please elaborate ?