GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Should governments use private companies in military conflict zones and what tasks should PMCs be involved in?
Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.
Sevodnya_Net       October 4, 2007, 18:07
Al said:
"Dino is right"
And this on the 50th anniversary of Sputnik. I'll just check that ticket :-)
Dino       October 4, 2007, 17:03
"Sullivan" I'm a realist...war is not pretty and is very messy business and I believe that there are Bullies in the world that need to be held a bay or at the end of a gun barrel, history has shown us time and time again that fanatics must be kept in check! The politicians (in the USA anyway) when they start a conflict some place in the world...try to micro manage the war from there ivory towers. The politicians think they are "SMARTER" than all the Generals! Thats why we are looking like "Quitters" and gutless wonders in the middle east! Hey American politicians when you give the order for WAR...let the Generals DO there jobs!
Al       October 3, 2007, 18:16
Dino is right in the fact that in America the military budgets are so corrupted and wasted so badly that they do need hired help for the military. These mercs exist for a reason, they are not subject to international law though (or any laws?) and are desirable for just that reason to the politicians.

Sevod go buy a lottery ticket!!! The stars have aligned!!
Sullivan       September 30, 2007, 16:43
Sam is right. "Private contractor" is just an orwellian term for what we all know as mercenaries. They are bloodthirsty, ruthless and devoid of a moral compass.

Dino, as usual you appear to have checked out your sense of logic at the door. Military leaders have always been at the behest of politicians, except in the case of junta 'governments' where the two are synonymous. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that military leaders should be allowed to operate without ANY oversight?

By the way, Dino, what combination of nationalities are you this week? Part Kenyan, part Tongan? Part French, part Mauritian?
sam       September 29, 2007, 13:57
What are this private contractor? they are the same old fashioned mercenaries of old.The same ones history saw in Biafra and Congo and other bloody conflicts they made worse,just a different name.They have no laws or governments to answer to.A bunch of gun happy bullies and murderers running arround killing.We have seen it all before.
Sevodnya_Net       September 26, 2007, 18:33
Oh no! I find myself supporting Al and Margo! Help!
Dino       September 26, 2007, 17:10
Its the sign of the times...better get used to it. Unfortunately the hypocritical politician's have driven the military to outsource the dirty jobs, that NEED to be done. If the politicians would simply leave the military leaders alone and let them do there jobs that they are trained to do...there would be no need for private companies.
Margo       September 25, 2007, 12:54
Absolutely not! We have seen recently what happens with private military contractors (Blackwater case).
Al       September 25, 2007, 04:05
An emphatic HET!! This leads to all kinds of uncontrollable situations and ethical questions. An army has laws and rules it must abide by (even if they do not someone is usually held accountable in the end), these mercenaries do not.