Civilians in Iraq: No Guns

[JohnRich 4]

In the news:

"As the insurgency and violence in Iraq intensify, the Department of Defense has proposed a new rule for most of the estimated 70,000 civilian contractors working in the war-torn region: They can't carry guns.

"At the same time, a top Defense Department official this week acknowledged publicly for the first time that the war effort was suffering a 'brain drain' of civilian workers who were fleeing Iraq because they didn't feel safe."

Full Story

Oh, and for all you Halliburton-haters, Halliburton says that 34 of its employees have been killed in the region. Yeah, what a sweet deal they got there.

[quade 4]

-most-

It is estimated that there is between 10,000 and 15,000 civilian contractors that will carry weapons as part of their duties. We call them "contractors", others call them mercs.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[boudy 0]

I found the linked article regarding our quasi-military security contractors fascinating. I read it shortly before our 4 former special forces contractors were killed in Fallujah.

Hard to imagine Tucker Carlson brandishing an AK-47 and helping comandeer a gas station (rather than getting shot waiting in line - Westerners in SUV's are big targets)

According to Tucker, the hired security contractors outnumber the British military contingent.

"Never before in a war zone has the United States relied so much on private citizens to perform military functions. Security firms such as DynCorp and Kroll, retained on State Department and Pentagon contracts worth billions of dollars, have sent thousands of civilian contractors to do the work that the undermanned U. S. military can't. Here, for the first time, the inside story of the private armies of Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?item_id=366991

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Oh, and for all you Halliburton-haters, Halliburton says that 34 of its employees have been killed in the region. Yeah, what a sweet deal they got there.

How many were directors or officers of the company?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

since the only defense against incoming fire is more accurate outgoing, what do they expect us to do carry pompoms and cheer on the soldier who barely qualified last year??

That is just asinine

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and for all you Halliburton-haters, Halliburton says that 34 of its employees have been killed in the region. Yeah, what a sweet deal they got there.

How many were directors or officers of the company?

Same as the number of politicians sons who have been killed.

[vmsfreaky1 0]

I'm guessing the 'no guns' thing horrifies you?

'what no guns?' OMG! how will these ppl ever be free?!! /sarcasm

It's got to be a good thing, this way no women and children get shot by trigger happy mercenaries! Im in favour! YEE HAA!

[kiltboy 0]

I'm curious about the Halliburton angle.
Were the employees US based that were working there or local Iraqis hired by the company?

David

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm guessing the 'no guns' thing horrifies you? ... It's got to be a good thing, this way no women and children get shot by trigger happy mercenaries! Im in favour! YEE HAA!

And more civilians who are working bravely to support U.S. troops will be murdered, unable to defend themselves. Are you happy about that too?

Note we're not talking about "mercenaries" here, but just guys driving trucks, and so on, to deliver fuel and food. Just like the guy who escaped yesterday from custody, into the hands of a passing U.S. troop patrol.

And note that the troop patrol wasn't out to shoot women and children. They were looking for a pipeline break, to help restore services to the people of Iraq.

I guess you were happier when 25 million Iraqiis lived under the brutal thumb of Sadam and his muderous thugs.

[billvon 3,131]

>And more civilians who are working bravely to support U.S. troops will
> be murdered, unable to defend themselves. Are you happy about
> that too?

I'm not happy about that at all, but they are putting themselves in harm's way. Take the civilian contractors who tortured Iraqi prisoners. Do you think you might feel anger towards someone who tortured a friend of yours? Would it be reasonable to think you might try to retaliate?

Iraq is a war zone. People are still dying in pretty large numbers. Most are Iraqis, but some are (and will continue to be) US military and civilian. There is absolutely nothing good about that, but it will continue for some time, and people who decide to go to Iraq go there aware that there's a war on.

>I guess you were happier when 25 million Iraqiis lived under the
> brutal thumb of Sadam and his muderous thugs.

I will be happy when 25 million Iraqis are free of both Saddam's and the US's torture chambers. Hopefully that day will come soon.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

...they are putting themselves in harm's way. Iraq is a war zone. People are still dying in pretty large numbers. Most are Iraqis, but some are (and will continue to be) US military and civilian. There is absolutely nothing good about that, but it will continue for some time, and people who decide to go to Iraq go there aware that there's a war on.

So are you for or against civilians in Iraq being allowed to arm themselves for self-defense?

Quote

I will be happy when 25 million Iraqis are free of both Saddam's and the US's torture chambers. Hopefully that day will come soon.

You know, most of the time you seem like a reasonable and intelligent person, and then you go and spoil the image with some dumb comment like that.

[billvon 3,131]

>So are you for or against civilians in Iraq being allowed to arm
>themselves for self-defense?

I think they should be able to choose for themselves whether they want to carry weapons, as long as they are following the rules of the companies they work for and the rules of the US military commander. Once the new government is in place, they must abide by whatever they say.

>You know, most of the time you seem like a reasonable and
> intelligent person . . .

So I'm fooling everyone!

>and then you go and spoil the image with some dumb comment like that.

My hope that we can end the US's torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib is dumb? Ah well. Then I'm dumb.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>and then you go and spoil the image with some dumb comment like that.

My hope that we can end the US's torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib is dumb? Ah well. Then I'm dumb.

No, it was only dumb to use the phrase "US's torture chambers", as if we have some kind of pre-planned, systematic, approved process of conducting a mass operation of torture. That's bullshit.

As for your response regarding civilians being allowed to carry guns in Iraq, that's the kind of reasonable and intelligent response I would prefer to see coming from you.