FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Private Military Companies





The-Nisk
I'm not big on politics, but even though this can be considered as a political issue, it arose my interest.
From what I understand, PMCs are made up of discharged soldiers, and while we can dress up their activities all we want, it can be essentially considered as blood money. It is a very interesting concept, mostly out of share amazement that such business can function and earn money without interference from the government(s), or be legal.

Although why would it, if the government does it it's not illegal. I must say it must be handy to have militarized personnel who can function outside the bounds of the normal military. My I do hate that body of lies and hypocrisy we call the government (any government).

Well that's just my view on it. If you can add some interesting information, please do! Looking forward to viewing your opinions Smile
jwellsy
I think there is a big difference between an army for hire like the French Foreign Legion that can help small regimes that don't have the resources to form their own military in any kind of timely fashion and a mercenary group that's used to avoid doing dirty work yourself.
standready
The-Nisk wrote:
My I do hate that body of lies and hypocrisy we call the government (any government).

I agree with you on that statement and about private military companies.
ocalhoun
The-Nisk wrote:

From what I understand, PMCs are made up of discharged soldiers, and while we can dress up their activities all we want, it can be essentially considered as blood money.

Are you referring to mercenaries, DOD contractors, or companies that do contract work for the DOD?
The-Nisk
ocalhoun wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:

From what I understand, PMCs are made up of discharged soldiers, and while we can dress up their activities all we want, it can be essentially considered as blood money.

Are you referring to mercenaries, DOD contractors, or companies that do contract work for the DOD?

It's clear that you think there is a fine difference between the three, no matter how you dress it up - it's still a gun for hire.

French Foreign Legion is not an army for hire, it's officially part of the French army, but focuses on recruiting members from all nationalities.
deanhills
I'm all for those. What is the difference really between people who are working for the military in any country, or a privatized set-up where soldiers are for hire? I would rather hire the privatized lot, as at least they would not have to deal with as much of the bureaucratic stuff that would hold back Government soldiers, depending of course how efficiently the privatized company is managed. I can't however think that they would be badly managed, if they were, they would definitely not survive as it is a very tough business to be in.
ocalhoun
The-Nisk wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:

From what I understand, PMCs are made up of discharged soldiers, and while we can dress up their activities all we want, it can be essentially considered as blood money.

Are you referring to mercenaries, DOD contractors, or companies that do contract work for the DOD?

It's clear that you think there is a fine difference between the three, no matter how you dress it up - it's still a gun for hire.

No... not so much.
Raytheon technicians coming to my base to install a new air traffic control radar system (which also handles civilian traffic)?
'RTS', a company that does grounds-keeping and lawn mowing on the base?
AAFES civilian personnel selling gas?
The commander's secretary, a DOD civilian employee?

It would be quite a stretch to call these 'guns for hire'...
To begin with, none of them actually have guns.
(And I suspect that any real 'gun for hire' would be quite insulted to be compared with them. ^.^)

I suppose you could say they were because they contributed in some way to the war effort, but there's hardly any end to that line of reasoning... You could say the same of any airline that carried military passengers, of any hotel that gave them lodging, any restaurant that sold them food, heck, even any taxpayer that helped finance them, or any voter who didn't vote for the most pacifist candidates available at all times.
mshafiq
I think the name military should only be used by Real Military.
I do not like parallel companies that may suck blood (tax money) by having contracts from Military.
So these could possibly be the ways to earn money from even Military and thus leading to the fact fact that Military will not be what it was before 20 years as they would loose their expertise gradually and will depend on private companies.

However , say there is no control on the new forming/coming companies that have some sort of Military expertise, it is better if they are many just not to build monopoly.

Why, at least there is competition among themselves if owners are really different.
deanhills
mshafiq wrote:
I think the name military should only be used by Real Military.
I do not like parallel companies that may suck blood (tax money) by having contracts from Military.
So these could possibly be the ways to earn money from even Military and thus leading to the fact fact that Military will not be what it was before 20 years as they would loose their expertise gradually and will depend on private companies.

However , say there is no control on the new forming/coming companies that have some sort of Military expertise, it is better if they are many just not to build monopoly.

Why, at least there is competition among themselves if owners are really different.
I don't agree. There are emergency projects when companies like these would be a godsend and where there would be less bureaucracy to work through. The military usually moves much slower.
ocalhoun
mshafiq wrote:

I do not like parallel companies that may suck blood (tax money) by having contracts from Military.

Well, the main reason the DOD hires civilians and contractors is to save money, so the military companies may actually be saving you tax money...

(Contractors pay for their own training, don't receive benefits, don't require housing, et cetera)
Related topics
Rigid School system in Asia
legalize (soft)drugs
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Most hated man in the world - who?
Have you visited an Emergency Room (ER) for care?
Types of Engineering
Congratulations President Obama
US Soliders' Reception of the President
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
House passes pork and earmark Military bill
If you want any privacy, don't use a cell phone
Cramped Plane Seats
the real "mission accomplished"
Does our government have a right to give no-bid contracts?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.