This suprises me

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:33 am

I didn't know that we "outsourced" war. This article at the BBC tells how three men are being held hostage (POW's?) in Columbia after their plane went down. They were engaged in the war on drugs for the US gov't, but they were employees of Northrup Gruman. Northrup Gruman was HIRED by the US Gov't to carry out this task because the "because the army is stretched beyond capacity".

I'm not sure what to think of this...it makes me feel weird.

Pigman · Post by **Pigman** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:36 am

Ever study the American Revolution?

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:08 am

Pigman wrote:Ever study the American Revolution?

Um, yeah, but don't tell me you believe that we continue to fight in the same way. I know the wars we fight now bear very little relationship to the way they were fought then. We don't even fight wars the same way we did in the last century...think WWII and carpet bombing, could we do that now?

Why would you compare a modern situation to something as ancient as the American revolution? Sure it was a significant point in history, but it just doesn't have much if any bearing on the way wars are fought today.

so, I guess you'll have to explain how the US gov't hired a corporation to fight a war for them in the 1700's, I guess I didn't read that part of the history.

bugfreezer · Post by **bugfreezer** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:17 am

Wouldn't that have to do with hiring mercenaries to bolster an army? In the American Revolution, England hired Hessian mercenaries to fight us.

I quote from here:

The Site Author wrote:The British purchased the services of 30,000 German Soldiers for $150,000, all of which went into the royal coffers of the German princes. These troops came from Hesse Cassel, Hesse Hanau, Brunswick, Anspach, Bayreuth, Anhalt Zerbst and Waldeck.

This certainly establishes a historical precedent.

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:41 am

so the british hired government forces from an external country to assist them.

I still don't see how this relates...the Brits didn't have enough men to fight the war so the went outside the country to find some more, and the paid the govenment of that country for the services of their army. You'll notice that they didn't hire mercenaries from the german gov't, but rather, Soldiers...

The case that I am feeling weird about is that the US Gov't has hired a corporation INSIDE the US to fight a war for it OUTSIDE the US. I just don't get the relationship between bolstering forces from an external gov't and bolstering forces from an internal corporation...

Maybe we could get Wall Mart to take care of that little problem in Cuba for us...? I am sure Sears would sign up for peace keeping in N. Korea! I'm confident we could convince Clear Channel Radio to make sure Iran stays inline.

It just feels about 1/2 a step away from state sponsored terrorism to me.

And speaking of precedents, we can find them for using biological agents, carpet bombing, nuclear bombs, pillage, plunder and rape! My contention to Pigman is that the revolutionary war ISN'T a precedent for the way we fight wars now, nor should it be.

Pigman · Post by **Pigman** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:13 pm

This is what you said that I was responding to:

"I didn't know that we "outsourced" war"

I guess your contention is that if SOME UK soldiers actually fought, then all the grunts the Brits paid off (native indians, germans, etc) don't count as outsourcing?

Well .. then .. ok...

How about the Reagan "war" in Central America? Was that outsourced?

----------------------

"My contention to Pigman is that the revolutionary war ISN'T a precedent for the way we fight wars now, nor should it be."

In the simple terms... I don't see ANY difference. The point in any war at any time is to kill the enemy with whatever you got. How about Asa weighs in on this...

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:11 pm

I guess the thing that shocks me about the whole thing is that we used a COMPANY to do the work, not another countries military. Hiring or using soldiers from another country doesn't really bother me that much, but this situation is MUCH different.

We have hired a company, not a military, not soldiers, a COMPANY to fight a "war." I have a hard time believing that you can't see anything wrong with this. What's next Mercenaries-R-us, how about Soldier-Mart? Can't you see the distinction here? This is war as a business, not a "necessity."

I didn't know that war was about killing. The one with the highest body count wins? Then why don't we count the Iraqi's we've killed? I don't know what war you fought in (I haven't fought in any, nor been in the military), but I am pretty sure the prime directive has never been kill as many as you can, but rather, protect the freedom of the country/people we are there to protect, the US, Vietnam, etc. Yes Killing is natural in a war, and can't be avoided, but it isn't the POINT of the war. OR maybe I am just mistaken that War has a higher purpose than 'just' killing.

I'm done with this...if you aren't alarmed by it, so be it...

AsaJay · Post by **AsaJay** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:00 pm

1. There are lots of civilian companies that are contracted to support armed forces during various conflicts. I don't really see this as much different.

2. Nothing in the article (that I could see) referred to any "armed conflict". Were these contrators participating in "armed conflict"; shooting at people, etc..?

3. Historically, -all- wars have been a matter of economics. The initiating nation wishing to expand their economic market, or supply internal market structure with needed commodoties.

4. Two options here: 1. Pull all our drug war resources out of Columbia and leave them alone. Allow the drug traffic to flow to America, allow people to spend the money on the drugs, get high, drive cars, kill people, get stupid, kill people. Tax the shit out of it, like taxing alcohol. or 2. Declare the country of Columbia is perpetuating a drug trade that is a danger to the health, welfare and security of the United States, and NUKE IT!

<stir, stir, stir>

Pigman · Post by **Pigman** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:18 pm

RD: I didn't know that war was about killing. The one with the highest body count wins? Then why don't we count the Iraqi's we've killed? I don't know what war you fought in (I haven't fought in any, nor been in the military), but I am pretty sure the prime directive has never been kill as many as you can, but rather, protect the freedom of the country/people we are there to protect, the US, Vietnam, etc. Yes Killing is natural in a war, and can't be avoided, but it isn't the POINT of the war. OR maybe I am just mistaken that War has a higher purpose than 'just' killing.
------------------------------------

Actually I have served in 2 "wars" and from my point of view (and perhaps historically) it is all about killing. I think that WWII ended in Japan when ONE bomb killed all those people in one go. Destroying property, cities, etc .. doesn't really win anyone a war... Normally in a war, you are NOT there to protect freedom, but to kill the enemy. Iraq has gone from WAR to what we have traditionally called a "police action". Perhaps we both agree that no one has a war just to kill people, but my premise is that when one side is tired of having their people killed, the "war" ends.

AsaJay · Post by **AsaJay** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:48 pm

"The pain of war, cannot exceed, the woe of aftermath"
Led Zeppelin.

Too True. When one side is tired of having it's people killed, they usually give up, and start counting the bodies. They try to get past the war, and build themselves up again.

We've made war too "anticeptic". The objective today is to "take away the enemies ability to fight". All well and good, but it doesn't necessarily "change" their point of view, their hatred, or lot in life.

Try as we might (as Americans) with our high ideals, we still can't circumvent the "pain of war". In all situations, civilians are involved.

And I would venture to say, that most likely, whichever side kills the most civilians, will be the side to win. I don't like that idea; it's not the idea I was trained to when in the military, but from the military history I've read, it appears to be the painful truth.

Pigman · Post by **Pigman** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:58 pm

As I read through this thread again, it would appear a possible problem with following these ideas is to first agree on what constitutes "a war".

For me, "war" is between nations. I.E. Germany VS America .. etc

Problem is that the term got muddied with such statements as "The war on Poverty" or "The war on Drugs" or now .. "The war on terrorism".

The original article described "force" being used against "an enemy" but I don't consider the USA at "War" with Columbia.

So .. the article more suggests we aquired "security forces" to accomplish some US Government agenda that in their opinion, did not require "real" combat G.I.s

R.D. if you would like a possible eye opener .. go out and get a copy of "Soldier of Fortune"magazine

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:16 pm

Pigman wrote:R.D. if you would like a possible eye opener .. go out and get a copy of "Soldier of Fortune"magazine

Ummmm, no thanks, I already have my recommended daily allowance of crazy.

Pigman · Post by **Pigman** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:23 pm

Don't blame ya ... SOF are people who REALLY, REALLY like to kill things. Of course they have their own web site, magazine, fan club .. etc