TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Were you there under penalty of imprisonment or death?

No, Iraq was a stroll in the park. What do you think?

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:And how much were you paid?

A LOT - commensurate with my experience, skillset and market-demands for them.

How much are you paid?

AndyC wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Nah. don't need to. If you're paid by a foreign government and carry a gun, you're a merc. Whatever you want to call it, the US has no interest in saving you.

You do realize you are insulting someone who was a security contractor for the US over in the sandbox, right? He has forgotten more about security contractors and mercenaries than you will ever learn.

I'm pretty proud that we saved a good number of American and British lives, both directly and indirectly, to say nothing of directly saving the lives of numerous Iraqi civilians. We lost a few of our own boys in doing so, but hey... "Contractors bad! Contractors bad!"

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'd say illuminate me but then again I don't care enough to keep arguinga nonsexistent point.

You'll find illumination within the definition of "mercenary" - too bad for you that you're too proud to look it up for fear of realizing you're wrong, but feel free to wallow in bias and ignorance.

A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]

sounds pretty on point.

Right - because Wikipedia is an authoritative legal source which trumps the UN

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'd say illuminate me but then again I don't care enough to keep arguinga nonsexistent point.

You'll find illumination within the definition of "mercenary" - too bad for you that you're too proud to look it up for fear of realizing you're wrong, but feel free to wallow in bias and ignorance.

A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:If they are there at the request and on behalf of the United States, we are responsible for getting them out.

Now, if you philosophically disagree with sending them in the first place, that's a different issue. If we send them to help accomplish our mission, we need to get them out when they are in danger or things go bad.

Bottom line, our efforts and the huge price we've paid has been for not if the terrorists aren't stopped.

If they are contractors then no one is sending them. Thats kind of the point. They aren't US troops.

You have a strange concept of contractors. Apparently they just get a wild hair and decide to show up unannounced in some country for some reason that's inexplicable. Very strange.

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

Equating them to US soldiers is quite humorous.

Such an equivalence is in your mind only. I'm speaking to moral obligation and commitment, which is independent of profession and nationality. Now, there may be circumstances when hard choices have to be made and under such circumstances fellow Americans have to come first. We're not in such circumstances or limited by how we can honor our commitments. OTOH, I'm referring to foreigners being paid by the US government, who may be called mercs from the perspective of their own nations, but I suspect the contractors referenced in this thread are mostly Americans, and ex-US military, and being paid by the US government are, hence, not mercs.

My coworker is currently hosting an Iraqi interpreter who served his brother-in-law in Iraq. Our enemy liked nothing better than killing such interpreters. His BIL did the honorable thing and got him out of Iraq, and this is exactly what we owed anyone who honorably served our interests in a similar way. Now this former interpreter, an Iraqi national, is joining the US army.

mojo84 wrote:If they are there at the request and on behalf of the United States, we are responsible for getting them out.

Now, if you philosophically disagree with sending them in the first place, that's a different issue. If we send them to help accomplish our mission, we need to get them out when they are in danger or things go bad.

Bottom line, our efforts and the huge price we've paid has been for not if the terrorists aren't stopped.

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Are these mercenaries? If so I could care less.

Define "mercenary", because I didn't meet any over there.

Hired private ex-soldiers, now AKA security contractors.

Exactly.

Here you go CPD. This is what I'm talking about. What you agreed with is NOT the definition of a mercenary. It's an American contractor.

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Nah. don't need to. If you're paid by a foreign government and carry a gun, you're a merc. Whatever you want to call it, the US has no interest in saving you.

You do realize you are insulting someone who was a security contractor for the US over in the sandbox, right? He has forgotten more about security contractors and mercenaries than you will ever learn.

Not insulting anyone. But if he was paid by a foreign power to carry a gun thats his business and his problem, not the United States.

What makes you think the people that are the subject within this thread are or were paid by a foreign government? It appears you've read the definition of mercenary and changed your tune.

Pawpaw wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Nah. don't need to. If you're paid by a foreign government and carry a gun, you're a merc. Whatever you want to call it, the US has no interest in saving you.

You do realize you are insulting someone who was a security contractor for the US over in the sandbox, right? He has forgotten more about security contractors and mercenaries than you will ever learn.