Author Topic: My 15 minutes (Read 683 times)

cpxxx · « **Reply #15 on:** August 27, 2004, 07:25:50 PM »

What was the name of the Brit journalist Gman? I might have seen some of his work. As a rule I think the BBC are pretty fair in this type of documentary. Too balanced sometimes though I think. Discovery channel too are pretty good. I doubt if you'll be potrayed as some kind of gun nut.

There was a documentary by Sky News on the other night, repeated a couple of times. I didn't see it all but it seemed quite fair. It followed a Brit security company around in Iraq.. One thing that came out was a criticism of the fact that many security firms drive around in big white SUV's that practically scream 'Shoot me I'm a foreigner.' They used non descript BMWs amd Mercs. One of the people they followed around later quit the job. When they interviewed him, he said he was getting disillusioned. Particularly as the standard of some of the newer recruits, some with a Rambo or James Bond mentality and some with little or no real military experience.

I have to say I have thought about becoming involved. Mainly for the money. I need money now!!!!!!! But I suspect I'm too old too unfit and too long out of the military. On the other hand if standards have dropped that low????????

Sandman · « **Reply #16 on:** August 27, 2004, 07:49:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
mercenary is wrong term. these guys are not mercenary.

It's a good term. The men and women working for Dyncorp don't swear an oath of fealty to the United States.

Coolridr · « **Reply #17 on:** August 27, 2004, 07:53:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
no really necessary coolridr. these guys are going to be psd for state dept and iraqi govt officials. when they not working you dont want some insurgent dirtbag id'ing them when they hit an internet cafe on their time off. also if they doing route recon or advance screen on foot "undercover" trying to look like some western commo tech you dont want the enemy knowing their face. these guys are wanted men by the enemy in a big way.

Who would want to live their life like that? Must be something wrong with them.

anonymous · « **Reply #18 on:** August 27, 2004, 07:53:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
What was the name of the Brit journalist Gman? I might have seen some of his work. As a rule I think the BBC are pretty fair in this type of documentary. Too balanced sometimes though I think. Discovery channel too are pretty good. I doubt if you'll be potrayed as some kind of gun nut.

There was a documentary by Sky News on the other night, repeated a couple of times. I didn't see it all but it seemed quite fair. It followed a Brit security company around in Iraq.. One thing that came out was a criticism of the fact that many security firms drive around in big white SUV's that practically scream 'Shoot me I'm a foreigner.' They used non descript BMWs amd Mercs. One of the people they followed around later quit the job. When they interviewed him, he said he was getting disillusioned. Particularly as the standard of some of the newer recruits, some with a Rambo or James Bond mentality and some with little or no real military experience.

I have to say I have thought about becoming involved. Mainly for the money. I need money now!!!!!!! But I suspect I'm too old too unfit and too long out of the military. On the other hand if standards have dropped that low????????

whats your email address? i can give you a pretty good brief on how its working right now.

anonymous · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2004, 07:57:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
It's a good term. The men and women working for Dyncorp don't swear an oath of fealty to the United States.

not going to get into this again. i live in this world. you do not. im telling you you are dead wrong. youre free to not believe me. so be it. if you were working for dyncorp youd be working for the us govt often with a security clearance sponsored by some agency or dept of the us govt. you may not swear an oath but if you betray the trust the punishment will be the same as if you did.

Sandman · « **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2004, 07:59:10 PM »

Whatever. The fact that the U.S. has legalized it doesn't change what it is.

No. This is not a morality judgement. It's dangerous work and the pay should be equitable to the risk.

anonymous · « **Reply #21 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:03:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Coolridr
Who would want to live their life like that? Must be something wrong with them.

if youre a warrior keeping the bad guys from winning is very rewarding. there may be something wrong with them but it has nothing to do with believing there is a need to zap people who think that blowing up diplomats is a valid form of diplomacy.

cpxxx · « **Reply #22 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:07:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
whats your email address? i can give you a pretty good brief on how its working right now.

Definitely interested. You could email me through my profile. thx

anonymous · « **Reply #23 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:14:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Whatever.

how about you define what a mercenary is and then explain to me specifically how it applies to some guy working for one of these companies in iraq colombia afghanistan and so on. you tell me specifically what the job entails who goes to these companies to find them shooters and under whose authority these shooters do their job and at whos direction. i could do it for you right now but since youre so knolwedgable on the subject you explain to me how i and guys that i worked with who risked their lives daily for the us are now "mercenaries" because we didnt "swear an oath of fealty to the us" after we retired from the military even though were working at the direction of the us govt with coalition military. last time i checked al qaeda guys dont hold their fire or give us "mercenaries" the option to buy their neutrality even if we "didnt swear an oath of fealty to the us govt" before heading into indian country. say youre a warrior. youve been out of a shooting job for a couple of years due to being "promoted out of the fun side of the business". 9/11 goes down and finally its open season on the scumbags youve been targeting for years but only getting the word to "go" one out of ten times. you go to the us military but theyre fully staffed or youre retired. but a company that contracts for the dod says "we need shooters here yesterday expect it to be hot". well if thats the path you chose and thats what you are you do it. all these companies do is help the us govt uk govt get highly trained combat veterans where they are needed by those govts without all the red tape of retirement insurance dependent care and so on.

anonymous · « **Reply #24 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:18:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Any soldier that is hired by a government/organisation/whatever for a perod of time and is not part of a regular army is by definition a mercenary. This is how the mercenary occupation started centuries ago ... soldiers, often foreign, hired to fill a gap in the lines or garrison forts to free up regular troops for other duties. For example during the battle of Waterloo, Wellington used Prussian mercenaries to fill up his ranks against Napoleon. Exactly the same as what Dyncorp is hired to do (in a more modern role of course).

If you're working as a soldier for hire, no matter if you limit your contracts to certain governments, or how much "government oversight" you're under, you are by definition a mercenary. A hired soldier.

There is no shame in that.

ok ill call a truce. understand that most of these guys and im talking 99% would never do this if they werent working a contract placed by their own govt. also understand that these companies wont hire outside of us citizens or citizens of very close allies for jobs that involve being a shooter. and technically while in country most of these guys are employees of the us dod or state dept etc. id call them govt employees or govt contract employees before id call them mercs. they almost always have to have security clearances that are sponsored by some us govt dept or agency. "merc" to me brings up images of the brits in africa working outside of the blessing of their own govt and such.

Sandman · « **Reply #25 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:18:56 PM »

Look up. Gscholz nailed it.

No need to take offense.

anonymous · « **Reply #26 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:20:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Whatever. The fact that the U.S. has legalized it doesn't change what it is.

No. This is not a morality judgement. It's dangerous work and the pay should be equitable to the risk.

its dangerous and most of the guys who do it do it because they feel it needs to be done for the greater good. plenty of the most dangerous assignments would be filled by the same exact guys if the pay was cut in half. call them action junkies call them dinosaur warriors that dont fit into the modern world anymore that have a simplistic view of good vs evil. but dont call them mercs chasing a paycheck.

anonymous · « **Reply #27 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:25:33 PM »

this topic is close to home. ive had a couple of good friends that any american would call "a hero" get killed working as contractors and they were on those jobs because they believed in the cause. they could have made more money doing something safer but if youre a warrior by profession then you feel like you are doing the most good when you are in direct conflict with the enemy. if you guys meant no disrespect then thank you.

anonymous · « **Reply #28 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:26:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
Definitely interested. You could email me through my profile. thx

will do.

Sandman · « **Reply #29 on:** August 27, 2004, 08:27:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
but dont call them mercs chasing a paycheck.

I don't think I'd paint it with such a broad brush as this.