Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WayneS
Calling defense contractor's mercenaries is a disservice to them. Everyone gets paid for their work, but almost all of these guys are very patriotic vets. I ought to know I have worked for a Defense Contractor for 15 years and we are not mercenaries.
10 posted on 01/07/2009 6:24:50 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: ohioman

My apologies.

I shall henceforth refer to them as “paramilitary defense contractors”.


16 posted on 01/07/2009 6:32:35 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: ohioman

Paid to fight?

Sounds like the traditional definition of “mercenaries” to me. Not necessarily a perjorative meaning, just a term used to describe such people.

Even the US, in its early years, hired mercenaries.
They fought for the US.
They were still mercenaries.

Saying they’re not mercenaries because they fight for the US is wrong, because they also “contract” to other foreign governments.

“Defense contractors” are traditionally understood to be defense manufacturers or service providers, other than combatants. If you weren’t a combatant, nobody’s ever called you a “mercenary”.


21 posted on 01/07/2009 6:53:59 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: ohioman

Calling defense contractor’s mercenaries is a disservice to them. Everyone gets paid for their work, but almost all of these guys are very patriotic vets. I ought to know I have worked for a Defense Contractor for 15 years and we are not mercenaries.””

Spot on assessment. I know some very honorable people that work for BW. These men are true professionals doing a job for which they are highly trained and often better than many inexperienced military personnel.


26 posted on 01/07/2009 7:16:50 AM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: ohioman
Calling defense contractor's mercenaries is a disservice to them.

I think we can draw a distinction between someone designing warplanes at Lockheed-Martin and someone actually on the ground in a warzone, pulling a trigger. The first is a defense contractor. The second may also qualify as a defense contractor, but by every historical standard, they are a mercenary.

A mercenary, taken in a vacuum, is not automatically a bad thing. But, they have different motivations and goals than a regular member of our military.

47 posted on 01/07/2009 8:22:50 AM PST by Citizen Blade ("A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy" -Benjamin Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: ohioman
Calling defense contractor's mercenaries is a disservice to them. Everyone gets paid for their work, but almost all of these guys are very patriotic vets. I ought to know I have worked for a Defense Contractor for 15 years and we are not mercenaries.

Nothing wrong with the term mercenaries. You fight, you get paid for it, you don't work for a government. You are in fact a mercenary. Patriotism is a wonderful thing, but you are a mercenary. Nothing derogatory about it.

63 posted on 01/07/2009 10:18:18 AM PST by Centurion2000 (To protect and defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic .... by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: ohioman
"Calling defense contractor's mercenaries is a disservice to them. Everyone gets paid for their work, but almost all of these guys are very patriotic vets."

I agree 100%. IAC, they aren't "mercenaries" by any definition. They are simply highly qualified security guards. Just as night watchmen, police, crossing guards, middle and high school security guards, and secret service agents are not "mercenaries".

Blackwater supports no contracting of personnel for the purpose of fighting in regional or local conflicts. A visit to the N.C. headquarters, training, and engineering & development facilities would present a truer picture of the organization.

Suggestions that Marines (who are trained to attack, kill, and break things) and the Army (which does have some "occupation" training & duties as well) waste their training and expertise on security of State Dept, or any other civilian personnel, is ludicrous.

(Hmmm! Maybe a case could be made that we, as a country, might be better off if didn't provide any security for those pinko-riddled bureaucrats!)

Semper Fi!

72 posted on 01/07/2009 2:45:14 PM PST by SuperLuminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson