The Iraq thread 4

[jtec 0]

It is a terrible shame and i believe it will always be the way from generations to come.

[Messiah 2]

However when you see a 10 second clip without any context or if anything what a reporter "thinks" is happening I do not see any grounds for argument.

Military exercises are confusing, war is a whole lot more confusing. One of the large determining factors in any battle is which side is more confused. How reporters expect to independently decipher what is going on from a few hundred metres is a ridiculous notion.

What video clips show is a small fraction from one point in view in one place at one time. How people can look at them and start drawing up dissertations is quite absurd.

If you see a video tape of an Iraqi being shot you can draw one conclusion - someone is dead. What you may not see is the handgrenade, the trigger for the bomb, the can of fruit which looks like a grenade.

spot on - exactly what im trying to get out, but with less words... and better explained

NurEinMensch - im not attempting to make you feel less disgusted with what happened, as we all have our own ways on interpreting videos such as those, and draw our own conclusions as to how we feel.

I'm trying to put forward, like Jineff said very well, that we see the video entirely out of context, we see no reason for the engagement, but this doesnt mean there wasnt... yes, they could be killing in cold blood, but i feel more strongly towards that we just didnt see the reasons.

the media will gear the video towards being that of murder... why? Because bad news is good news, it sells storys, it gets the public reading and buying their magazines/watching their channels...

an open mind is all it takes, you have every right to be disgusted with what you see in the video, but i think drawing conclusion about what you're seeing is a little premature at the point in time.

[Daniel 0]

Okay, think I've sorted my opinions out now, thanks guys.

Any news on the investigations into the convoy shootings?

[Messiah 2]

i think aegis are conducting an internal investigation - probally at first to establish whether the men shooting the video... and the cars are their employees... if not, then i'd assume they'd stop there... if it turns out to be their employees, then they'll take it from them.

whether the findings of the internal investigation becomes public knowledge, will yet to be seen.

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]I also was against it from the start

I was and I'm still against this damn war, the reasons behind make absolutely no sense to me.

The current Wars context don't solve anything, in fact they just make increase the human hatred, I think there are still better ways to take problems out instead of taking lives out, but unfortunately such methods need more time and more patience than lobbing JDAM bombs over houses.

Regards

Thunderbird84

[NurEinMensch 0]

I can't tell whether or not their action was justified in this particular situation. They may have acted quite reasonable, according to a threat. Who knows.

What I feel is disgusting is that they put themselves in this position in the first place, without need, and fully aware that things like this are indeed going to happen.

They are not soldiers, they are not there because they had to go, they are not defending their country, their families. It's not even sure if they do the Iraqis a favour by being there. Yet they went there, knowing they will probably end up shooting other people, for what again?

This is the origin of my disgust.

[bn880 5]

Maybe a rename for the thread:

Consistently inconclusive about things that may or may not be, but we're pretty sure it's in Iraq... or is it?

"Well gee Bob, by looking at these tapes of the crash, can we really be sure they really really wanted to hit the tower? It looks like they may have been trying to avoid hitting a Canada goose heading south for winter."

[Jinef 2]

Bn880 you funny bastard.

NurEinMensch - I completely agree with you.

As my posts before clarify, I also declared my dislike for civilians strutting around someone else's country with guns. What makes it all worse is they then have the audacity to complain that they are getting their heads chopped off. Stay the fuck at home watching soap operas you daft pricks!

harley 3 1185 -

"First off you'd be fighting for Britain, and you'd be fighting for your country - not the politicians.  Are you saying that it Britain should go to war with China tomorrow, you wouldn't serve if the call came?"

Hmmmm, you need some more contact with the military. Soldiers with an ounce of life experience never fight for King and Country, Queen and Honour, Apple Pie and Uncle Sam.

They fight for personal survival and the survival of their unit as they have been trained to do so. There is always a sense of a greater good which is attempted to be infused into soldiers however most do not buy it. The war on Iraq has very clearly indicated that it is very possible to commit nations to war solely due to politicians.

Soldiers and People in Iraq are fighting and dying for the judgement of George Bush and Tony Blair. That is not an opinion, that is hard truth. As it is the political leaders who convinced the nation to war. It is now apparent the only WMD in Iraq is the 'coalition of the willing' who have severely fucked up a stable, albeit cruel, country.

I myself am not really allowed to go marching in the streets chucking petrol bombs However I do believe the public has a responsibility to make their own judgement and to demand the military to withdraw. Write letters to your public representatives. Get pissed off.

Do you really feel secure having a national guardsman standing with an M16 at grand central station?

I found it amusing, they shoot someone with that at 20 metres and the bullet just keeps going. Also I imagine if a suicide bomber appeared the poor guardsman might shit himself and empty the magazine into the crowd ... he is not trained for that shit. He is meant to fight with 3 other rifleman in a fireteam, within a squad, within a platoon, within a company...

Just take the UK for example when the UK Armed Police shot some Brazilians head off by accident  

If you know anything about the military, terrorism and how it is countered who might realise that this war on terrorism is more focused towards giving contracts to companies and rejuvenating a post cold war military than actually gathering intelligence, creating networks and APPEASING THE FUCKING TERRORISTS!

If anything 11/Sep sent the message to me 'Someone is severely pissed off with the US :P'.

It also sent the message 'I dare you to come and attack us, give us our holy war!'

Logic and sensibility would argue that by running off to Afghanistan and Iraq yelling "REVENGE!" like Captain Haddock

creates a bloody good reason for people to believe there is cause for a holy war and resistance is increased. Muslims mainly disagreed with the attacks on the US, once the 'coalition of the willing' was formed and the bombs came down a lot more people started to believe the US+UK was actually out to get them and they must fight. Resistance increases.

You cannot fight terrorism publically and conventionally, the whole idea is absurd. If anything it creates more terrorists, which is good for buisness.

*sigh*  I fear I am not articulating well enough so I shall just stop typing.

[walker 0]

Hi Jnef

I think you need to not mix Afghanistan with Iraq.

There was a sound legal and ethical basis for the Afghan campaign.

The Iraq campaign on the other hand was we are now clear was founded on falsifications.

To whit:

No WMD

No Link to 9/11

No Link to Al Qaeda till the Coalition invited them in Post GWII

Kind Regards Walker

[harley 3 1185 0]

Bn880 you funny bastard.

NurEinMensch - I completely agree with you.

As my posts before clarify, I also declared my dislike for civilians strutting around someone else's country with guns. What makes it all worse is they then have the audacity to complain that they are getting their heads chopped off. Stay the fuck at home watching soap operas you daft pricks!

harley 3 1185 -

"First off you'd be fighting for Britain, and you'd be fighting for your country - not the politicians.  Are you saying that it Britain should go to war with China tomorrow, you wouldn't serve if the call came?"

Hmmmm, you need some more contact with the military. Soldiers with an ounce of life experience never fight for King and Country, Queen and Honour, Apple Pie and Uncle Sam.

They fight for personal survival and the survival of their unit as they have been trained to do so. There is always a sense of a greater good which is attempted to be infused into soldiers however most do not buy it. The war on Iraq has very clearly indicated that it is very possible to commit nations to war solely due to politicians.

Soldiers and People in Iraq are fighting and dying for the judgement of George Bush and Tony Blair. That is not an opinion, that is hard truth. As it is the political leaders who convinced the nation to war. It is now apparent the only WMD in Iraq is the 'coalition of the willing' who have severely fucked up a stable, albeit cruel, country.

I myself am not really allowed to go marching in the streets chucking petrol bombs However I do believe the public has a responsibility to make their own judgement and to demand the military to withdraw. Write letters to your public representatives. Get pissed off.

Do you really feel secure having a national guardsman standing with an M16 at grand central station?

I found it amusing, they shoot someone with that at 20 metres and the bullet just keeps going. Also I imagine if a suicide bomber appeared the poor guardsman might shit himself and empty the magazine into the crowd ... he is not trained for that shit. He is meant to fight with 3 other rifleman in a fireteam, within a squad, within a platoon, within a company...

Just take the UK for example when the UK Armed Police shot some Brazilians head off by accident  

If you know anything about the military, terrorism and how it is countered who might realise that this war on terrorism is more focused towards giving contracts to companies and rejuvenating a post cold war military than actually gathering intelligence, creating networks and APPEASING THE FUCKING TERRORISTS!

If anything 11/Sep sent the message to me 'Someone is severely pissed off with the US :P'.

It also sent the message 'I dare you to come and attack us, give us our holy war!'

Logic and sensibility would argue that by running off to Afghanistan and Iraq yelling "REVENGE!" like Captain Haddock

creates a bloody good reason for people to believe there is cause for a holy war and resistance is increased. Muslims mainly disagreed with the attacks on the US, once the 'coalition of the willing' was formed and the bombs came down a lot more people started to believe the US+UK was actually out to get them and they must fight. Resistance increases.

You cannot fight terrorism publically and conventionally, the whole idea is absurd. If anything it creates more terrorists, which is good for buisness.

*sigh*  I fear I am not articulating well enough so I shall just stop typing.

I think I've had enough experience thank you. My father was a combat engineer officer during the last fighting in Aden and served in N.I. during the "Troubles", and I've had plenty of contact with soldiers at two Army Camps. Of course, in combat, it all boils down to survival, but you are bound by rules and regulations which outline your service.

And you didn't answer my question; were the country under massive threat from China, (which apart from the so-called idealogical background would certainly involve a question of survival), would you join up?

Most soldiers who join up and are not there just for the college education or the money (vis a vis certain elements of the U.S. Army) are there because they want to do so, to make a career out of serving for...King and Country - that's form the soldiers I've spoken to anyway, and they joined up without hesitation. Without Patriots joining up, the U.S. Army would lose one hell of a vast chunk of its manpower. The British Army, because of its continual retractions, is no doubt suffering from a "I want to keep my job" mentality, which probably affects the patriotic of any man.

Going to war in Iraq will have stretched the average soldier's faith in his Political leaders even more than ever; sending them into hostile territory whilst trying to save more money. At least the United States backs its troops to the hilt, whatever the political disposition of the politicians. The same can't be said about war-mongering Tony and his clowns.

[Jinef 2]

Some good points however my observations:

Quote[/b] ]There was a sound legal and ethical basis for the Afghan campaign.

Possibly, if you believe in retaliation to terrorism with conventional forces. I found the objectives to be vague and the entire concept slightly farcical.

Ethics

I do not believe we have the right to decide upon what is ethically acceptable in another's country simply because we have more money than them. If you look at these 'oppressive' regimes you will see they are reflections of our own societies hundreds - thousands of year ago.

The reason for lack of advance in ethics is the lack of industrial growth and education. Where does the west seriously help poor countries advance .... no where.

Poor countries if they are lucky have workers who are allowed to make our trainers and jeans for 25c a day. However there is absolutely no desire in the west to see the 'third world' advance as it reduces their power. Let the fuckers starve so we can drive BMWs.

Legal:

An NGO (Non Governmental Organisation) attacks a country. Which bloody country can the terrorists be aligned with if they are an NGO? None. There was no legal founding for Afghanistan or Iraq in my eyes.

Governments supporting terrorism is a different matter, however it is not exactly justifiable for invasions to occur as a result.

If that was the case:

> Russia had the legal right to declare war on the US + NATO because many NATO countries were supplying and training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

> The USA had a legal right to launch nuclear weapons on China because they were supporting the VC in Vietnam.

> The United Kingdom has the legal right to declare war on the USA because of mysterious funds appearing in the IRA's pockets and Armalite rifles appearing out of nowhere.

According to the logic proposed all these would be legally justifiable.

Quote[/b] ]Were the country under massive threat from China, would you join up?

Hmmmmmmmm .... China has nice food ........ what shall I do ....... can I phone a friend?

Probably yes ... (Is that the right answer?)

Quote[/b] ]Going to war in Iraq will have stretched the average soldier's faith in his Political leaders even more than ever; sending them into hostile territory whilst trying to save more money.

Average grunt faith in political leaders = -10.

Average grunt faith in NCOs = +5.

Average grunt faith in Junior officers = 0.

Average grunt faith in Middle officers = 2.

Average grunt faith in Senior officers = 0.

Saving money on the infantry is always practiced as they only die anyway and they ruin equipment. There was as much stink in the US about some personnel not having correct gear as they had in the UK anyway.

But whereas the average US soldier may complain for not having a radio that works, the average UK soldier complains that his boots fall off, he has the wrong camouflage, a rifle that might not work and no body armour.

Again, not very well worded post. Couldn't be bothered today.

[Daniel 0]

Nah sorry mate (Harley), the Afghan war was a bit of a cock up. The Americans were too reluctant to put troops on the ground and didn't give the British enough chances to use the SAS, etc. We only had one actual contact! Faster reaction and foot soldiers might have snared Bin Laden before he took off. But thats another story.

EDIT: Hmm, looks like I had a mini rant. Sorry about that. Back on topic...

As far as I see it, this topic of the convoy shootings seems pretty pointless to discuss until we get either more information or hear progress on the investigations.

[Jinef 2]

I saw this, and thought of you

Quote[/b] ]

Blog: The word "blog" is literally shorthand for "boring;" a vulgar, overused word that strikes your ear with the dull thud of a cudgel to the soft spot of a child. It's an abbreviation used by journalism drop outs to give legitimacy to their shallow opinions and amateur photography that seems to be permanently stuck in first draft hell. Looking in the archives of the blogs, one would expect someone who has been at it for years to slowly hone their craft and improve their writing and photographs, since it's usually safe to assume that if someone does something long enough, he or she will eventually not suck at it. Even with lowered expectations, you'll get a shotgun blast of disappointment in your face.

It's an unspoken rule that every blog must use the same layout as every other blog: long, slender columns of annoyingly condensed text, thousands of links to other blogs, plugs for shitty political books, and more links to yet more blogs:

Warblog: A blog that primarily deals with war. Filled with whiny blow hards who are fixated on their stubborn ideas and conspiracy theories. For example, there are countless hours pissed away by conspiracy theorists who think the WTC towers were demolished by bombs planted by the government. These armchair engineers write endlessly about how the physics of the collapse was impossible, how the temperature wasn't hot enough to melt steel, and how the planes were carrying missiles. Of course, the one thing they don't postulate is a REASON.

My personal favorite warblog was one that had a flash animation with people who were quoted as saying "it didn't sound like a plane to me... it sounded like a missile." Thank you Joe Nobody for giving me your expert opinion on what missile sounds like, because gas station superintendents are usually the best people to ask about the sonic signature of ballistic missile thrust.

Warblogger: Like all other bloggers, an idiot. Usually a self-righteous prick with a political axe to grind. Tragically, these dullards fail to realize that nobody cares what they think. And no, the 2 comments per post you get on average doesn't count. Get some real opinions, then maybe you'll get some real feedback.

Warblogging: The act of writing amateur, unfounded, and borderline illiterate opinions about war and war strategy.

[chops 111]

As far as this whole "Fight for your country" stuff goes. It seems absurd to consider ones self to be doing so, on the otherside of the world, in a country that never attacked yours and was never capable of doing so.

A friend of mine was a soldier in the Bosnian war. He told me that if anything like that ever started again, he'd take his family and get the fuck out of there, pronto. Advice I'd follow. At the same time nowhere really to go sometimes... I spose the point being we should not put people in such positions to begin with.

Oh and I want you for PM, Jinef.

[quicksand 0]

Sunni alliance hails Iraq election as succes

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The main Arab Sunni alliance that contested

Iraq's election said on Saturday it had been a success, fuelling U.S. hopes peaceful politics will help pave the way for a troop withdrawal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Washington and its allies in the Shi'ite and Kurdish-led government have been trying to lure Sunnis into the political process, hoping to undercut support for the Sunni insurgency.

"The election process succeeded ... Thank God there were only a few cases in a huge country where there is death and violence," Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of one of the parties in the Iraqi Accordance Front, told a news conference.

The U.S. military and rebels have warned that a truce during Thursday's election that allowed Sunnis to vote did not mean attacks aimed at removing U.S. troops would end.

But U.S.

President George W. Bush was buoyed by the millions who turned out to vote and he praised them for "defying the terrorists and refusing to be cowed into not voting."

In stark contrast to bloody polls in January, the election was largely peaceful, with turnout swelled by the participation of Sunnis sidelined by a previous boycott.

Iraqi electoral officials do not expect final poll results for at least two weeks.

The ruling Shi'ite bloc is expected to face fierce competition from U.S.-backed secular politician Iyad Allawi.

Members of Allawi's Iraqi National List told a news conference there were violations at several polling stations, including Iraqis voting under the names of dead people.

"Saad Kassim Hussein and Kassim Hussein in the Qabla district of Basra are dead but people voted in their names in more than one center," said Wael Abdel Latif, a judge and supporter of Allawi's list.

Independent Electoral Commission chief Hussein Hendawi told a news conference that there would be no need for recounting of votes in any polling station after he was asked about complaints of violations in the former rebel stronghold of Falluja.

BROADER COALITION

The big Sunni turnout means the new government will probably consist of a broader coalition than the current one between Shi'ite Islamists and Kurds, raising the possibility that a more diverse leadership could ease sectarian tensions.

Fresh efforts to stabilize Iraq after more than two years of suicide bombings, shootings and kidnappings will be set against the background of complex negotiations to form a new government.

Judging by past talks, it could take months of heated discussions that inflame sectarian passions as frustrated Iraqis demand security, better services and jobs.

The smooth election could take the sting out of criticism of Bush, who is seeking to bolster support for the war amid low public approval ratings, concern over the rising U.S. death toll and demands from some Democrats for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops.

In the wake of the election, U.S. forces in Iraq are likely to shrink from a current 155,000 to their pre-election total of 138,000 by early February. But other reductions are contingent on U.S. commanders deciding that Iraqi forces are trained sufficiently to fight the insurgency on their own.

Bush will tell Americans in an Oval Office address on Sunday that the U.S. mission in Iraq has entered a critical period in the aftermath of the election, the White House said on Friday.

The White House scheduled the speech at 9 p.m. EST on Sunday (0100 GMT Monday) and asked U.S. television networks to carry it live. It follows a series of four speeches that Bush gave in the run-up to the election.

In a shift in mood, insurgents urged Iraqis to vote in the election and promised to protect them from the kind of violence that killed 40 people in January polls.

"The resistance did not allow any side to interfere and they stuck by their promise and we thank them in the name of the Iraqi Accordance Front," said Dulaimi, one of the fiercest critics of the Iraqi government and U.S. occupation.

Several insurgents in the western Anbar province, heartland of a guerrilla campaign that has killed many thousands of security forces and civilians, vowed to resume attacks soon against U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies.

For the first time I have to say that I am optimistic about current developments in Iraq.The Iraqi ellection day was the most bloodless day in Iraq since the war started.

The nationalist reistance demonstrated it can tighten the leash on Al-Queda severly,forbidding them to attack any polling station after they promised bloodshed and that is more organised then previously thought.

Sunnis are finally participating and will get a fair position in the next government that I hope will be a mixed secular alliance between Allawi-Sunnis and Kurds.

A door has been opened.I am waiting to see US military next move,keeping a low profile during the ellections and exiting troubled cities was a good choice,a timetable for withdrawl is mandatory now and will probably be pressed by the new government.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think it is time to examine what it has cost so that George Bush Junior can say he is a "War President" to kinda make up for the fact he was a Vietnam War Dodger.

George Bush Junior famously said in 1994, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." as a his prefered method of dodging the Vietnam War. His "Service" in the US Air National Guard was some distance away from exemplary and is still being investigated to determine if it was properly completed.

Rumours that Karl Rove has papers relating to George Bush Juniors period when he was suposed to be in the US Air National Guard and connections to Roves own position in the Traitorgate Trials are probably just rumours.

Let us start with Iraqi Civilian and Police Dead

Quote[/b] ]Iraq Body Count: War dead figures

The campaign group Iraq Body Count has been recording the number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence.

On 1 December 2005, it put the total number of civilian dead at between 25,685 and 29,201 and the number of police dead at 1,640.

Iraq Body Count uses a survey of online news reports to produce its running tally, including a "minimum" and "maximum" figure where reports differ, or it is unclear whether a person killed was a civilian.

The figures include not only deaths caused by military action, but also those it considers a "direct result" of Iraq's breakdown in law and order.

In a statement on its website, Iraq Body Count says "civilian casualties are the most unacceptable consequence of all wars" and must be recorded and - if possible - investigated.

Because it relies on deaths reported by the media, it suggests its figures are an underestimate as "many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported".

'Public estimates'

On 12 December, US President George W Bush said about 30,000 Iraqis had been killed since the war began...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm

Follow the above link for more of the article

As to coalition Soldiers killed the current total 2356 of which 2155 were US soldiers in the 1005 days of more or less continuous combat in Iraq.

For figures of Iraqi soldiers killed in GWII we will never know. Probably many tens of thousands.

And all for what?

No WMD

No Link to 9/11

No Al Qaida in Iraq (Until the coalition invited them in)

But hey it is not all doom and gloom

That other Vietnam War Dodger you guessed it boil in the bunker Dodgy Dick Cheney made it to Iraq!

Quote[/b] ]Cheney makes surprise Iraq trip  

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has made an unannounced visit to Iraq - his first since the 2003 US-led invasion.

Mr Cheney praised Iraq's "tremendous" elections last week and was described by President Jalal Talabani as a "hero for liberating Iraq"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4539830.stm

Aparently no one new Dodgy Dick Cheney was there not even the Iraqi President (Probably considered a security risk)

Dodgy Dick Cheney is rarely seen outside his bunker so this unheralded visit is very brave by the man so afraid of his own shadow that he is rarley seen. Sort of what you would expect from (I wont call him man) a odd sort who spent the Vietnam war making up excuses to dodge the draft.

Kind Regards Walker

[wrighty 0]

Ive never witnessed such an outburst from a community which i believed to be mainly mature with a decent grasp on reality. Ive been working as a civilian contractor in Iraq from Jan 2004. Some of the views expressed here are so totally out of touch with whats going on i dont know wether to laugh or cry. I suppose thats to be expected because 99.9% of you have never been in a dangerous situation in your life.

As for the footage from Aegis defence, well its pretty obvious the footage is edited complete with sound track and the cutting of the footage leading upto the incidents. The correct procedure is hand signals, flash panels, hand flares, followed by warning shots then finally disable/destroy said vehicle. Funnily enough these are rules of engagement as used by US convoys throughout Iraq. Well they would be as all security contractors are employed by the US department of defence and therefore directly responsible to them. Why is that, well you know all those suicide car bomb attacks that you witness on CNN? well believe it or not they actually happen. And unless somone comes up with a fantastic new operating procedure to stop these slamming into your convoy its always going to be about putting metal into a vehicles engine block or windscreen to stop it. As for the signs on the rear of convoy vehicles, well yes you cant read them at 100m distance but you will read them at 50m and then pull back to 100m along with the rest of the traffic. Its there as a warning to traffic, generally under 30m and the vehicle will be fired upon.

Mercenary is a dirty word. Technically yes we are paid by another country. So is the Foreign Legion, British Army Gurkhas and what of all the Peurto Ricans promised citizenship after they serve in the US Forces? However security contractors in Iraq conduct no offensive operations whatsoever we are entirely defensive. Our main job is to protect high profile clients involved in the reconstruction of the country. This involves taking them from A-B and protecting them on site. Why doesnt the military do this? well they do but not on the scale provided by civilian companies. Also its a lot easier to write off civilian contractors from different countries being killed on the roads than more coalition troops. As for being blood thirsty killers, well not the last time i looked in the mirror. 2 and a half years ago i was one of those brave boys going to war for my country, as the press said. Now i no longer fight for queen and country im a blood thirsty mercenary then? I dont get up in the morning with the intention of hurting anyone, just to drive from A-B safely. But make an attempt on my clients life and i will drop you. Our main defence from ambush is to floor the accelerator not get out and go toe to toe with these guys. You get idiots everywhere, but believe me the typical security company have a hell of a lot less than your regular military battalion. You get paid to do a high risk job and do it well, should you not shape up your quickly on a flight home. In the military guys that dont shape up are generally sidelined into jobs where they can do no harm.

As for these elections going well. Who do you thank for that? Ive just spent 4 weeks over December missing christmas and New Year securing ballot boxes and polling centres from potential attack. Why didnt the coalition military do this? Because the Iraqi government didnt want them to have direct involvment, also the coalition didnt want the Iraqi security forces with direct access. Thats where we came in the compromise is reached with the UN for western security consultants in charge of local Iraqi security to provide a sterile environment for the ballots. The polling stations were attacked but they didnt breach our security. Anyone fancy that job then? didnt think so, but thats why i risk life and limb to try and make this world a better place for my kids to grow up in. Yeah it might all end in tears next time i go back there but at least ive attempted to do the right thing and my conscience is clear. Think about that next time your sat in your warm houses flaming people risking their lives for something you wouldnt understand because you lack the minerals necessary to try to make a difference.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Mercenary is a dirty word.

Mercenary as a word does not imply anything negative by default, the mercenaries themselves are to blame for that if you feel it does.

Quote[/b] ]

Technically yes we are paid by another country. So is the Foreign Legion, British Army Gurkhas and what of all the Peurto Ricans promised citizenship after they serve in the US Forces?

Well, maybe they in fact are mercenaries of sort.

Quote[/b] ]

However security contractors in Iraq conduct no offensive operations whatsoever we are entirely defensive. Our main job is to protect high profile clients involved in the reconstruction of the country. This involves taking them from A-B and protecting them on site.

The word mercenary does not imply the nature of it's task. The fact that you operate in a military manner wielding military grade weapons and getting paid by a foreign army makes you mercenaries.

Quote[/b] ]

Why doesnt the military do this? well they do but not on the scale provided by civilian companies. Also its a lot easier to write off civilian contractors from different countries being killed on the roads than more coalition troops. As for being blood thirsty killers, well not the last time i looked in the mirror. 2 and a half years ago i was one of those brave boys going to war for my country, as the press said. Now i no longer fight for queen and country im a blood thirsty mercenary then?

No disagreement here, it just takes a bunch of young amateurs to ruin everyone's reputation and it's always easier to blame contractors than risk "blaming the troops" (especially in the US apparently).

[walker 0]

Dear wrighty

It is very simple we should not be waisting our money on contractors. We should instead be providing enough proper army troops.

While I accept that you wish to do good in Iraq, the only proper place for you to do that is in the Army.

If you truly believe what you just said to be right and are not just in it for the money and you are a UK citizen you have a duty surely to volunteer and step up to the plate and serve your nation. The UK is currently on a recruitment drive and there is nothing to stop you joining the TA if you have other commitments.

As many UK officers and even the SAS themselves are saying while there are many profesional contractors who follow the rules among the 20,000 plus contractors there are too many idiot cowboys who are causing more trouble than the whole contracting body is worth.

Also the latest info is that George Bush Jnr. has decided that the 18 billion Iraq reconstruction budget of which one third was spent on employing security contractors is not to be extended. So there will not be money for contractors next year.

Kind Regards Walker

[Messiah 2]

If you truly beleive what you just said to be right and are not just in it for the money and you are a UK citizen you have a duty surely to volunteer and step up to the plate and serve your nation. The UK is currently on a recruitment drive and there is nothing to stop you joining the TA if you have other commitments.

he did serve in the army mate read his post a little closer. I think the point wrighty's making is that alot of people have instanltly come onto these forums and declared 'his kind' murderous criminals... i'd say its fair to say his opinion and experience outweighs alot of the opinions and armchair experts on these forums.

by the way, wrighty is the friend of mine i spoke about serving CP in iraq, and the photos were courtesy of him.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] Anyone fancy that job then? didnt think so, but thats why i risk life and limb to try and make this world a better place for my kids to grow up in.

*wipes a tear*

Sorry man but you don´t make the world a safer place by going to Iraq. According to CIA studies the world has become a more dangerous place because of Iraq war 2. Your kids don´t need you in Iraq to have a better life. They need you at home to have a better live. In the end it´s all about money , isn´t it ?

[Messiah 2]

Quote[/b] ] Anyone fancy that job then? didnt think so, but thats why i risk life and limb to try and make this world a better place for my kids to grow up in.

*wipes a tear*

Sorry man but you don´t make the world a safer place by going to Iraq. According to CIA studies the world has become a more dangerous place because of Iraq war 2. Your kids don´t need you in Iraq to have a better life. They need you at home to have a better live. In the end it´s all about money , isn´t it ?

ermm... check what you wrote, but you say the Iraq War 2 made the world a more dangerous place to live... ok, i'd agree with that.

wasnt combat operations announced to be finished back in 2003? hence since then it has been post Iraq War 2, which is the dangerous world we live in. Therefore, by your own statement wrighty is going to work in a more dangerous environment that the colalition caused... surely then he's trying to make it more peaceful, whatever the CI(no torture going on here)A say? Perhaps not the world, but at least Iraq. Balschoiw, remember this is his opinion and how he feels - you have no right to tell the man his opinion and feelings are wrong, whatever your own are, nor do you have the right to tell him where he should be, how to raise his children or if he does it for the money or not.

lets face it, CP contractors certainly didnt make the world a more dangerous place, george w bush did.

[Daniel 0]

One of the arguments was the military should be doing the contractor's jobs. But didn't Wrighty say the Iraqi dovernment wants to avoid Coallition involvment? Therefore people like Wrighty are serving a just cause protecting convoys and personel. As Messiah said, Wrighty has served his time in the military. Apart from the few possibly out of context incidents brought up in the news, all these people are doing are safeguarding their assignments.

[harley 3 1185 0]

I'm not disputing that wrighty is in Iraq to make it a better place; only a distinct minority of any Westerners could possibly be there to make it a worse place or to take advantage of the situation.  Although without being too nosey I have to question why you'd leave the army and then go into a field of work which is very unattractive physically and morally thanks to the efforts of some bad apples on among you or by gross bias on the part of the press.

Placing civilians on guard duty at Iraqi polling stations may be a short-term solution to a problem, but sooner or later Iraqi troops and police are going to have to take up the mantle and do the job - sooner rather than later.  Glad to hear that you didn't get mussed up on your stretch though, wrighty.

There's got to be a balance between civilian contractors and the military, and so far into the "occupation" of Iraq, it should definately be either the coalition or Iraqi militaries keeping the country safe.  There can't be such a "compromise" as you described without creating problems further down the road.

As to your suggestion, Walker, about getting down to the local TA or Army recruiting office and signing up, quite frankly I'd rather be a contractor on CP anywhere;  Blair, the MOD and the General Staff's gutting of the military is seriously a) making the military extremely unattractive as a career and forces retention levels down, and b) makes it a lot harder for the troops on the ground to do their job.  Only lots of men on the ground can provide a decent level of security, and Britain simply can not meet that requirement, unlike the U.S.

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have to question why you'd leave the army and then go into a field of work which is very unattractive pysically and morally - compared to the British Army that is.

More money? Choosing your own jobs? I don't know too much about the area to be honest, but I can think of a few advantages.