TexasCHLforum.com

If they are there at the request and on behalf of the United States, we are responsible for getting them out.

Now, if you philosophically disagree with sending them in the first place, that's a different issue. If we send them to help accomplish our mission, we need to get them out when they are in danger or things go bad.

Bottom line, our efforts and the huge price we've paid has been for not if the terrorists aren't stopped.

ISIS now headed to Baghdad.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

Equating them to US soldiers is quite humorous.

Such an equivalence is in your mind only. I'm speaking to moral obligation and commitment, which is independent of profession and nationality. Now, there may be circumstances when hard choices have to be made and under such circumstances fellow Americans have to come first. We're not in such circumstances or limited by how we can honor our commitments. OTOH, I'm referring to foreigners being paid by the US government, who may be called mercs from the perspective of their own nations, but I suspect the contractors referenced in this thread are mostly Americans, and ex-US military, and being paid by the US government are, hence, not mercs.

My coworker is currently hosting an Iraqi interpreter who served his brother-in-law in Iraq. Our enemy liked nothing better than killing such interpreters. His BIL did the honorable thing and got him out of Iraq, and this is exactly what we owed anyone who honorably served our interests in a similar way. Now this former interpreter, an Iraqi national, is joining the US army.

mojo84 wrote:If they are there at the request and on behalf of the United States, we are responsible for getting them out.

Now, if you philosophically disagree with sending them in the first place, that's a different issue. If we send them to help accomplish our mission, we need to get them out when they are in danger or things go bad.

Bottom line, our efforts and the huge price we've paid has been for not if the terrorists aren't stopped.

If they are contractors then no one is sending them. Thats kind of the point. They aren't US troops.

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

Equating them to US soldiers is quite humorous.

Such an equivalence is in your mind only. I'm speaking to moral obligation and commitment, which is independent of profession and nationality. Now, there may be circumstances when hard choices have to be made and under such circumstances fellow Americans have to come first. We're not in such circumstances or limited by how we can honor our commitments. OTOH, I'm referring to foreigners being paid by the US government, who may be called mercs from the perspective of their own nations, but I suspect the contractors referenced in this thread are mostly Americans, and ex-US military, and being paid by the US government are, hence, not mercs.

My coworker is currently hosting an Iraqi interpreter who served his brother-in-law in Iraq. Our enemy liked nothing better than killing such interpreters. His BIL did the honorable thing and got him out of Iraq, and this is exactly what we owed anyone who honorably served our interests in a similar way. Now this former interpreter, an Iraqi national, is joining the US army.

You may think that. I doubt actual US soldiers think that. We have a commitment to US soldiers. Other combatant groups? Hardly.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The same can be said for those who pack firearms. Those contractors are human beings, and more than likely American citizens.

They may be humans but there's no reason to go to war for them.

Can you clarify which government you think is paying these contractors? As far as I've seen, all are paid by either the US DOD or the US State Department. Now, if a contractor is not American I suppose you could call him a mercenary, but then, you realize, right, that the US military takes foreign nationals who want to become citizens of the US? To me, if someone is fighting on our side either in uniform or under contract and paid by the US government, they're one of ours...no matter where they're from originally.

Equating them to US soldiers is quite humorous.

Such an equivalence is in your mind only. I'm speaking to moral obligation and commitment, which is independent of profession and nationality. Now, there may be circumstances when hard choices have to be made and under such circumstances fellow Americans have to come first. We're not in such circumstances or limited by how we can honor our commitments. OTOH, I'm referring to foreigners being paid by the US government, who may be called mercs from the perspective of their own nations, but I suspect the contractors referenced in this thread are mostly Americans, and ex-US military, and being paid by the US government are, hence, not mercs.

My coworker is currently hosting an Iraqi interpreter who served his brother-in-law in Iraq. Our enemy liked nothing better than killing such interpreters. His BIL did the honorable thing and got him out of Iraq, and this is exactly what we owed anyone who honorably served our interests in a similar way. Now this former interpreter, an Iraqi national, is joining the US army.

You may think that. I doubt actual US soldiers think that. We have a commitment to US soldiers. Other combatant groups? Hardly.

So, enlighten me. Which branch of the military did you serve in? How many of those around do you think shared your attitude? If you were an officer with an Iraqi interpreter you'd have left him to his own devices when we left Iraq? I'm giving you an example of an actual Army officer who worked to get the guy that helped his unit in Iraq out of the country and safely to America --not a hypothetical example.

When you demonstrate these are Iraqi interpreters and not hired guns we can discuss it.

Until then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:When you demonstrate these are Iraqi interpreters and not hired guns we can discuss it.

Until then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm still interested in what aspect of your military service inclines you toward the assessment you've made about the attitudes of other soldiers?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:If they are there at the request and on behalf of the United States, we are responsible for getting them out.

Now, if you philosophically disagree with sending them in the first place, that's a different issue. If we send them to help accomplish our mission, we need to get them out when they are in danger or things go bad.

Bottom line, our efforts and the huge price we've paid has been for not if the terrorists aren't stopped.

If they are contractors then no one is sending them. Thats kind of the point. They aren't US troops.

You have a strange concept of contractors. Apparently they just get a wild hair and decide to show up unannounced in some country for some reason that's inexplicable. Very strange.

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:If they are there at the request and on behalf of the United States, we are responsible for getting them out.

Now, if you philosophically disagree with sending them in the first place, that's a different issue. If we send them to help accomplish our mission, we need to get them out when they are in danger or things go bad.

Bottom line, our efforts and the huge price we've paid has been for not if the terrorists aren't stopped.

If they are contractors then no one is sending them. Thats kind of the point. They aren't US troops.

You have a strange concept of contractors. Apparently they just get a wild hair and decide to show up unannounced in some country for some reason that's inexplicable. Very strange.

They are contractors. Private contractors no? Why were they hired again and not US troops? Don't like it? Don't be a "contractor." No one is making them do it. They won't go to prison for not doing it. They get paid to do it.
Again we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd say illuminate me but then again I don't care enough to keep arguing a nonmaterial point on a political thread on a CHL board.

You'll deviated off the topic of this thread. I say lock it up and let us start a new thread.

AndyC wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'd say illuminate me but then again I don't care enough to keep arguinga nonsexistent point.

You'll find illumination within the definition of "mercenary" - too bad for you that you're too proud to look it up for fear of realizing you're wrong, but feel free to wallow in bias and ignorance.

A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]

sounds pretty on point.