wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:10:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume