wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:18:10 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You have stats to back up that statement? Military personnel have been
protecting diplomats at embassies for decades, for example.

We have Marines standing at the gates but they are not really guards.
That is true at the White House too. They have civilian guards. When
Hillary goes out on the road, Blackwater (AKA Xe) escorts her.
(Google it)

You're completely wrong. The Marines are soldiers and they defend the
embassies. I have a friend who's son is one.

So you are saying there are no contract guards in embassies that are
exposed to serious threats? I suggest you look into what we hire
Blackwater for.

Never said that. The Marines defend the embassies.

I know for a fact that in the White House, the marines are just window
dressing. They have the Secret Service protecting the president and
his family and the White House Police protect the grounds.
When I was in DC the Marines didn't even have loaded guns.

White House /= Embassy

Just because they're still being used, doesn't make them cost-effective or
cheaper, which is your claim.

They are certainly cheaper, politically. Financially it is a hard case
to make either way but if we accept the numbers we hear from the left
(Bush spent a trillion in Iraq), it makes a US soldier cost us a
million a year per guy.

They're cheaper and more effective... which is a financial case as well as a
moral/legal one.

You are confusing salary with cost.
Every soldier has many tens of thousands of dollars of training,
logistic support to make him an effective fighting force in a moment's
notice and the equipment standing by to make that happen.
When he is washing dishes or scrubbing toilets all of that is going to
waste.
Your contractor stories are about combat fighters and they do make low
6 figures but 60-70% of the contractors are locals who might not even
be making as much as the soldiers, with no pensions or benefits.

There are 100K private security forces in Iraq. They're not locals.


Haliburton don't provide their services cheaper! That's completely
false.
The ones currently over there are paid $100K+ compared to the regular
military salaries. We used them in the 60s, but in very limited way.
Now,
it's out of control.

$100k is a bargain. It costs us a cool million dollars a head for the
soldiers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. (according to CNN and
Newsweek). I agree that is somewhat a bogus number but that is also
how we get to GW spending a trillion in Iraq.
The real problem is the political cost of recruiting and deploying
another 70,000 soldiers or dealing with the 1000+ dead and 37,000+
wounded contractors. They are simply expendable assets who do not have
to come back to Dover AFB in flag draped coffins.

Not to mention their above the law mentality, which costs of even more
American lives.

We have had our soldiers convicted of rape and murder. There have been
plenty of friendly fire and collateral damage incidents too. Most
don't see the light of day unless CNN gets a hold of them.
War is hell, that is the way it works. If you don't think that is
right, take my advice and get our people out of that hell hole.

Big difference... the military is subject to our laws. The contractors are
not.


Contractors really started coming on board with the end of the draft
and throughout most of the time since they have outnumbered uniformed
services.

A nice private army beholden to right wing Christians waiting for the
Rapture.

They work for Obama now.

They mostly work for the right wing Christians. They're paid by the US
gov't.

--
Nom=de=Plume