But, but...the troops ALL support the war, don't they?
active vets support obama too.
I mean with the military being large and made up of many different political leanings albeit largely republican, why is this Donkeyface news?
No kidding. Especially with the hundreds of thousands of military personnel, they boast about a few thousand dollars?
Get real. With such a tiny percentage of contributions claiming any branch of the military as the employer, it is far too small of a sample to consider.
It's absolutely laughable.
Food for the ignorant I guess.
Doh! Frito Lay vendors support Ron Paul!
The ones that actually contributed gave their money overwhelmingly to the anti-war candidates. They walked the walk. The ones who supported the war on camera obviously didn't contribute to McCain or one of the other hawks. They only talked the talk.
Are you ing re ed? The link is in the first message. Anti-war candidates Obama and Paul got about 2.5 times the amount that McCain got from military workers.
Walk the walk.
He is ing re ed
Everyone knows the mercenaries make the real money in Iraq. We need to find out whom they are supporting.
Most mercs are foreign nationals, everyone knows that. You know, outsourcing for cheaper labor?
Based on the past foreign political contributions that have come to light, they support the Dems?
But they are paid much more than US soldiers. How is that cheaper?Most mercs are foreign nationals, everyone knows that. You know, outsourcing for cheaper labor?
Well, looks like my attempt at subtle humor failed, but you bring up an interesting point.
I wonder if there is a way to do an apples to apples comparison of what it costs the US to field, say a company sized element compared with one sourced from contractors?
Hmmm, well that wouldnt entirely tell you the reasons why this administration's policy of merc armies is the way it is.
I believe youre using the word "cost" in the monetary sense.
With that, it obviously costs a great deal more to field a merc army than a national one.
But if by "cost" you mean politically, then a merc army's value raises exponentially based on the fact that their deaths are not tallied into the body count reported by the military or media.
So, it may "cost" a great deal more money to field said merc army, but the political gain from their death, dismemberment and displacement not being used in the statistics to represent allied deaths far outweighs the money spent for their hire.
Its becoming the criteria for "How to prolong a needless Foreign War 101" in this day of preemptive war.
DR, you really think a unit cost (moneywise) would be more expensive for a merc unit?
I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I would think that when you factor in the bloated governmental infrastructure (overhead) needed for fielding a combat unit would cause them to be more expensive than a private option.
Certainly not, per soldier. But the companies that are hired to carry out these assignments charge 3x the amount that it would take for the military's equivalent.
Links to follow.
http://adamash.blogspot.com/2007/04/...rcenaries.htmlWith the job being so risky, what would attract so many to private companies? Well, Blackwater has been known to pay its employees $365,000 per year, compared to the $36,000 an average US soldier makes. No wonder so many former military personnel are signing up with a private employer instead of re-enlisting.
(dont judge me because of the blog, I never read it before, nor will I...just google)
Much, much more reputable source...
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...7180/index.htm
Let me know when it costs the US government $600-$2000 a day per soldier.Standard wages for PSD (personal security detail) pros were previously running about $300 a day, according to people who know this market. Once Blackwater started recruiting for its first big job, guarding Paul Bremer, the rate shot up to $600 a day. Global Risk no longer had a lock on the market for Gurkhas, whose monthly wages rose from $800 to as high as $2,000 today.
To even be comparable, the US must pay (~127,000 US military) $76.2-$254 million per day to keep US troops on the ground. That number of troops was june 2006, so I must assume it doesnt include the 30k troop surge. So those millions-per-day numbers just got a whooooole lot larger. (by $18-$60 million per day).
Since we obviously know it doesnt cost the US government that much to field its own military, one must assume the private companies (ie Blackwater) make exponentially more than the US military.
Which in turn leads me to believe the US government hires these companies to artificially "deflate" the casualty numbers from Iraqi endeavor thereby being able to prolong this war at great expense to the US while still having a very slim and misinformed support base in the US.
Last edited by DarkReign; 09-16-2007 at 03:35 PM.
Man, I was dead wrong. It costs exponentially more per soldier by a wide margin.
I think it's a hoot that we couldn't even get US soldiers to guard our emperor of Iraq.
If you mean the Iraq PM, why would the military have a PSD (Personal Security Detatchment) for him? I'm pretty sure the PSD's the US military has is for their own commanders.
If you're referring to the US ambassador, I believe his protection is a function of the State Department.
I mean Bremer.
You're telling me there weren't enough people available from the Marines, Seabees and DSS who usually protect these kind of missions to protect one guy?
Of course, Bremer never answered to State -- only to Rumsfeld -- so his escort should have been military, right?
If Karma means anything, they will all die horrible deaths.
Signed,
Wild Cobra
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
