FReep This Poll! Should The U.S. Government Employ Private Security Firms Like Blackwater?

North County Times/The Californian ^ | October 2, 2007 | North County Times/The Californian

[DogByte6RER]

FReep This Poll!

This is the actual poll question:

Do you think the U.S. government should employ private security firms like Blackwater?

Yes

No

Not sure

Go to the North County Times/The Californain link provided. Scroll down a bit and look for the poll on the right hand side.

Vote your choice.

Note: This poll should remain active until Wednesday evening (October 2.)

[Redbob]

Any job for which you can find a listing in the Yellow Pages should NOT be done by government.

You need security?
Hire a security firm.

US Marines are trained to kill people and break things, NOT to provide security for dignitaries of whatever stripe.

[texastoo]

Let me give you some food for thought.

Every weekend some Washington politician is in Bagdad for a photo op. Remember John McCain claiming you could walk around over there without extra protection. He was lying or as he put it, he misspoke.

I can’t remember a war where politicians went visiting almost weekly for photo ops. This stupid action underminds the war effort. So as long as you have stupid politicians, we need extra protection for them and it shouldn’t be our troops.

[CJ Wolf]

They shouldn’t employ them, they should give them a Letter of Marque.

[CJ Wolf]

“Why should “diplomatic personnel” get bodyguard treatment?”

lol, Because our enemies want to kill them and their families if they could!

[Constantine XIII]

Uh...so who are those tough-looking fellers who guard all of our embassies? :p

[onedoug]

So what?

[humint]

Any job for which you can find a listing in the Yellow Pages should NOT be done by government.

Your first point has a flaw. Why would Americans need an army at all? We could just outsource the entire war, couldn't we? Nations have Armies for national security. When your diplomats need security, you call your national armed forces.

US Marines are trained to kill people and break things, NOT to provide security for dignitaries of whatever stripe.

Your second point also has an obvious flaw. The USMC protects its own commanders when they are in theater. American military personnel do what they are trained to do. If they are not currently trained specifically to protect diplomats, they should be.

[c-b 1]

Generally I’d say no, except the alternative would be to put more troops in harm’s way to guard these self-important politicians.

Maybe if the government didn't hire mercinarys to protect them they wouldn't go there.

No because hiring forces like this generally makes me think of a hired mercenary army, and we already have an Army. I’d hate to see a slippery slope where more of the job of the soldier is taken over by hired guns driven by money rather than loyalty and honor. IIRC, going this direction helped the downfall of the Roman Empire.

I wholeheatedly agree.

[swatbuznik]

Yes - 69%
No - 28%
Not sure -3%

[arderkrag]

Yes, absolutely.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

My vote would be for having DEMOCRATS give up on private protection.

In fact I’d let the visiting Dems get by with Iraqi protection. Starting with that poster girl for bad plastic surgery herself: Nancy Pelosi.

[ChurtleDawg]

heck no. You know how much these Blackwater guys make? $1000 a day on average.

That is coming out of our tax money.

it is a huge waste, if you ask me.

[ChurtleDawg]

then why do Marines guard all US Embassies overseas?

The military has protected our people in hostile countries for generations. I don’t see why we need to hire mercenaries at $1000 a day to guard some US AID guy when the military can do the same thing for far cheaper.

[ApplegateRanch]

So as long as you have stupid politicians, we need extra protection for them and it shouldn’t be our troops.

So long as we give said protection, we'll never be rid of said stupid politicians.

If they are so stupid, they are not fit to survive, so it is counter productive to employ their betters to give them protection.

Let evolution in action do its job. Everyone would be better off.

[OneHun]

 

Do you think the U.S. government should employ private security firms like Blackwater?
More

Yes   (163 Votes, 71%)

No   (62 Votes, 27%)

Not sure   (5 Votes, 2%)

View Past
Poll Results

---

Comment On
Past Polls

[mkjessup]

I don’t know if Blackwater is a little trigger happy or not, but I think assigning them responsibility for Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Shrieker Pelosi, Fat Teddy, Dick Turbin, Jack Yellowstain Murtha, etc., would be a great idea, it would allow those esteemed Democrats to assess the skills and abilities of Blackwater security staff for themselves.

Sure hope those Blackwater guys don’t get confused and take aim in the wrong direction or at an inappropriate target.

Noooo, they wouldn’t do that I’m sure.

[agere_contra]

Yes, 186 votes.

[Wolfie]

Of course they should. Somebody’s gotta do the gun confiscation.

[org.whodat]

No because hiring forces like this generally makes me think of a hired mercenary army, and we already have an Army. I’d hate to see a slippery slope where more of the job of the soldier is taken over by hired guns driven by money rather than loyalty and honor. IIRC, going this direction helped the downfall of the Roman Empire.

BTTT

I have a good deal of misgivings about the Constitution in this area, a private army killing people. I don't buy it! Without absolute proof that they were being shot at and then their first order should be to retreat.