twa Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 Wait,What? Blackwater Wins Piece of $10 Billion Mercenary Deal Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/exclusive-blackwater-wins-piece-of-10-billion-merc-deal/#ixzz11CUXYIQp Never mind the dead civilians. Forget about the stolen guns. Get over the murder arrests, the fraud allegations, and the accusations of guards pumping themselves up with steroids and cocaine. Through a “joint venture,” the notorious private-security firm Blackwater has won a piece of a five-year State Department contract worth up to $10 billion, Danger Room has learned. Apparently, there is no misdeed so big that it can keep guns-for-hire from working for the government. And this is despite a 2008 campaign pledge from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ban the company from federal contracts. Eight private security firms have won State’s giant Worldwide Protective Services contract, the big Foggy Bottom partnership to keep embassies and their inhabitants safe. Two of those firms are longtime State contract holders DynCorp and Triple Canopy. The others are newcomers to the big security contract: EOD Technology, SOC, Aegis Defense Services, Global Strategies Group, Torres International Services and International Development Solutions LLC. Don’t see any of Blackwater’s myriad business names on there? That’s apparently by design. Blackwater and the State Department tried their best to obscure their renewed relationship. As Danger Room reported Wednesday, Blackwater did not appear on the vendors’ list for Worldwide Protective Services. And the State Department confirms that the company, renamed Xe Services, didn’t actually submit its own independent bid. Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/exclusive-blackwater-wins-piece-of-10-billion-merc-deal/#ixzz11CVFOh7w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 Sigh....this mercenary stuff is going to backfire even more than it already has, I believe it is truly a terrible direction for our country and I'm sad that it's still happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 ASF, The sad part is our government has been using mercs for so long, they dont see a problem with it on any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 This has been going on for years, i believe Clinton and crew backtracked within months of condemnation. Mercenaries are supposed to do bad things... so our image is Not? supposed to improve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 LOL, "Change you can believe in!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 I support the use of mercenaries. You can check my past posts for more detailed reasons. First, it privatizes the military, allowing the best companies who can provide the best services to get the bid. Second, say what you want about their supposed "cowboy" behavior. These are some of the finest operators in the country. They're practically all ex-special forces. For each "incident," there are a number of good, solid missions they run. Third, our military doesn't have enough men and women to do everything. The primary responsibility of the mercenaries is to provide VIP protection. Now why would you want to have our SEALs and Green Berets protecting VIPs when they could be out in the field? This is the smartest allocation of resources at the present time. Finally, who can blame a lot of guys leaving the service to join a PMC? Up to $400,000 a year speaks for itself. By the way, the whole Blackwater name change to Xe is REALLY old news, as in almost 2 years ago old news. They're not trying to fool anybody. Plus, Blackwater is the best. One company at the end of the day is going to win most of the contracts while other smaller guys try to break in to the market. That's how business works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 Erik Prince should be in jail, his company shouldn't be getting a piece of a 10 billion dollar contract This administration proves it failure everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 I support the use of mercenaries. You can check my past posts for more detailed reasons. First, it privatizes the military, allowing the best companies who can provide the best services to get the bid. Second, say what you want about their supposed "cowboy" behavior. These are some of the finest operators in the country. They're practically all ex-special forces. For each "incident," there are a number of good, solid missions they run. Third, our military doesn't have enough men and women to do everything. The primary responsibility of the mercenaries is to provide VIP protection. Now why would you want to have our SEALs and Green Berets protecting VIPs when they could be out in the field? This is the smartest allocation of resources at the present time. Finally, who can blame a lot of guys leaving the service to join a PMC? Up to $400,000 a year speaks for itself.By the way, the whole Blackwater name change to Xe is REALLY old news, as in almost 2 years ago old news. They're not trying to fool anybody. Plus, Blackwater is the best. One company at the end of the day is going to win most of the contracts while other smaller guys try to break in to the market. That's how business works. Under very different circumstances, I would support mercenary use too. Letters or Marque and reprisal have been very successful in application throughout a few periods of our history and are a good tool to use as an alternative to undeclared war on a non-nation. I think its a great way to approach terrorists and pirates. What we see here though is simply corporatism with a military bent. That was never the intent and it reeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 This is for Somalia. Information Dissemination: The American Princess First reported by Military.com, the pirates, who have halted all talks with the ship's owners, are talking to a woman named Michele Lynn Ballarin, instead. Frustrated with the pirates, a senior government official told ABC News, "It's pretty sad when a horse country socialite has more sway in Somalia than the whole U.S. government." Michele Lynn Ballarin is no ordinary 'horse country socialite,' she also owns Select Armor, Inc., a private security firm with a questionable record. She also wasn't an unknown in Somalia in 2008, as only two years earlier her firm had been centric to a public discussion regarding the role of private security firms working around the UN to overthrow the Islamic Courts and stand up the TFG. Or, maybe not if this is for embassies. I disagree with the use of mercenaries... for this role... however I can't say that stretching our valuable military forces instead of contractors is a better plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 YAY Blackwater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 One of the major problems that I have with the privatizing of the military is that it allows governments to work in ways that skirt and even violate existing international laws. When Blackwater did some terrible things in Iraq the Bush Administration started to claim that no existing laws covered Blackwater, and IMO that's exactly why they were used. Which is exaclty the reason I am against their use. War for profit is a simply reprensible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 My question is: Should these "mercenary" forces be operating in our name? They are private companies right? It's not like they have a commander in chief. I'm not very learned on the subject other than all of the negative press I've heard in the news. The main problem I see is that these companies operate outside of the US government and can give us a bad name. They don't face the same punishment as our service members. It's almost as if they are outside of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Well Gawker just got a response to their FOIA request and has published the reports of Blackwater shooting incidents in Iraq: http://gawker.com/5866375/gentlemen-we-shot-a-judge-and-other-tales-of-blackwaters-rampage-through-iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.