wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:05:25 -0500, Harry
wrote:



It's cheap insurance.

Maintaining the Korean DMZ may be insurance but it sure isn't cheap.
It costs up to a million dollars a year (Iraq price) to deploy a US
soldier in a war zone. That is one of the reasons why Haliburton/KBR
and Blackwater are bargains.


Halliburton and Blackwater cost us more than they are worth. There's a
lot more than dollar "cost" when it comes to foreign policy blunders.
There's also a huge, uncontrolled "thug" element in connection with
using these damned contractors.

There are no shortage of atrocities and collateral damage incidents by
our troops. It may be politically correct to slam Blackwater but the
State department still uses them because they have a better record of
keeping diplomats alive than the military. Haliburton simply provides
logistics a lot cheaper than the military could ... unless we
reinstated the draft and even then it is debatable. The decision to
use contractors was made in the 60s ... because of cost. That was when
we had across the board increases in military pay.


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

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume