# Senator and Polaris Institute challenge PMC's



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Nov 2005)

I just wanted to say I watched Diplomatic Immunity over the weekend and some of the comments made here about you "being clear what your against" as opposed to "what you stand for", was very evident during the show and very much undercut your credibility in the debate.

To be candid, I have little doubt that you're a well-intentioned man.  I don't think people spend as much time at anything as you obviously do with the intent of trying to make things worse but my suggestion would be that the Polaris Institute take some time and actually formulate a model in which you believe Canada's armed forces SHOULD intervene on foreign soil.

Is it ethnic cleansing?

Is it genocide?

In short, define the set of parameters in which the Polaris Institute would support Canadian Intervention, and then in black & white also define under what parameters you wouldn't.

Then once you define where we should intervene, review the practical implications of that inclination.  Example:  If we want to stop the next African Genocide, what personnel, tools and skils do we need?

Bottom Line:  At present to sit back and just criticize is below your level of intelligence and is a disservice to Canadians who need leaders leading from the front, and as such I hope the Polaris Institute reconsiders its current positioning and moves from an organization that merely complains to one that steps forward and in public forums begins to present tangible working alternatives.

I do hope you'll respond....

Thank you in advance,


Matthew.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Nov 2005)

To be fair- he is one person in an unruly gaggle that must be a pain in the a$$ for him to manage. If you read between the lines, there is some common ground.


----------



## HDE (19 Nov 2005)

I read a National Post article not long ago where the issue of former Canadian soldiers working for private military firms arose.  Mr Staples commented that since they had received their training from the government  there should be some sort of "oversight" on what they did with it.  Essentially you served once in the Canadian military and so you're obliged to get a sign-off on how you behave from then on.  I'd love to see this sort of thing imposed on just about any other member of Canadian society.  I wonder if Mr.Staples actually thinks through the implications of his assertions.  Increasingly, IMHO, we live in a world where the 10 second sound bite replaces thoughtful analysis.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Nov 2005)

Sarcasm ON:   

I actually think PMC's should be tasked with *ruthlessly* safeguarding UN and NGO work in the various places around the world. Why should the suits and the warlords be the only ones making a few bucks out of humanitarian relief?      

Sarcasm OFF: 

Steven is entitled to his opinion, but in this case the idea is mis-placed.   There are lots of Canadian ex-soldiers doing valuable PMC work everyday all over the globe and in virtually all cases their work goes towards protecting human life and property, not destroying it. Why anybody would want to interfere with that is simply astounding and once again a farily clear demonstration of the lack of informed debate that spews from the cake-holes of far too many citizens in this country.   PMC's may hold dim views of the people they are protecting, but at least they are doing something to keep people alive. 

That being said, I'll give Steven credit for at least taking the time to discuss the matter. Not many politicians of any consequence would bother because there is no politcal capital to be gained from the discussion.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Nov 2005)

Don't worry, Mr Staples is in good company:  Senator Dellaire was quoted in the 17 November Ottawa Citizen as saying much the same, further reinforcing my opinion of him.   :  

The court challenges would be interesting, to say the least!


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2005)

I'd like to see them try to tell me what to do


----------



## teddy49 (21 Nov 2005)

Copyright 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of
 CanWest Global
 Communications Corp.
 Times Colonist (Victoria, British Columbia) November 17, 2005 Thursday Final  Edition Pg. A5

 Senator seeks federal ban on Canadian mercenaries:
 Private security firms should be off-limits, says former Canadian Forces general

 a journalist, CanWest News Service

 OTTAWA

 OTTAWA-- Canadians should be banned from working as hired guns for private military firms, says Senator Romeo Dallaire.

 The retired Canadian Forces general, who commanded United Nations troops during the Rwandan genocide, warns there is not enough legal oversight of companies who provide governments and corporations with the equivalent of private armies. He argues such firms are mercenary organizations.

 In the 1990s private military companies were hired by several countries to provide soldiers to defeat guerrilla armies or act as advisers to train troops for combat. The industry has rapidly expanded and today there are an estimated 20,000 private security contractors working in Iraq and an unknown number operating in Afghanistan. They protect government officials and aid agency workers, train police and soldiers, and guard important installations such as oil refineries and power plants.

 Dallaire recently returned from South Africa which has banned its citizens from taking part in outright mercenary activities and heavily regulates those who want to be involved with private security firms.

 "We don't have such a law," Dallaire said. "If I had any influence I would bring in a law that would prevent [Canadians] from joining organizations that have an international mandate of security that is non-controllable.

 "Make it illegal," he added.

 Nepal and the Philippines have banned their citizens from working in Iraq.

 Former commandos from the Canadian military's Joint Task Force 2 special forces unit are employed overseas as private security contractors, including in Iraq. In addition, ex-regular force Canadian soldiers have found employment as hired guns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 Exact numbers of Canadians employed in such jobs is not known since the industry is largely unregulated. Maj. Doug Allison, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces counter-terrorism branch, said the military does not know how many JTF2 members have left for jobs with private military firms. But Canadian Forces documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen show the highly trained JTF2 personnel, in particular, are being activity recruited by such firms.

 So far three Canadians working as private security contractors have been killed in Iraq. Two died in gun battles and a third was killed in a bomb blast.

 At least 270 civilian contractors have been killed in Iraq but some estimates put that figure as high as 500. The numbers include both former soldiers working for security firms as well as support personnel.

 Foreign Affairs officials say there are no regulations preventing Canadians from working for private military firms.

 Defence analyst David Rudd questioned whether the federal government could ban individuals from employment in a particular industry. Even if a law were brought in prohibiting Canadians from working for military companies, it would be almost impossible to enforce, he added. "It's difficult to ban Canadians from doing anything," said Rudd, president
 of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "We have an open economy and we have freedom of movement."

 Other analysts have argued private military companies can provide security in war-torn countries more quickly and efficiently than, for instance, forces brought in by the United Nations.

 But Dallaire said the issue is not whether private soldiers can do the job better than their counterparts in standing armies. The issue is the lack of accountability and oversight of such firms, he noted. In addition, Dallaire said that since money is the prime motivation of such companies and the individuals who work for them, there are questions about how that might affect how they do their jobs.

 "The slippery slope is that we actually have governments acknowledging these things are capable and they're acceptable," he added.

 But Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, which represents some of the largest firms in the security industry, argues civilian contractors are even more accountable than United Nations troops. It is in the best interests of companies to ensure their personnel act professionally and are well trained, he added.

 "The goal here has to be improving peace and stability operations," Brooks said. "The better you do peace and stability operations the more people are alive at the end. But it seems to me a lot of people see the goal as penalizing companies that dare to make a profit in a conflict zone."

 GRAPHIC:
 Photo: Jean Levac, CanWest News Service; Romeo Dallaire: "Make it illegal."

Edited for formatting-Harris


----------



## Infanteer (21 Nov 2005)

Someone gave him a patronage job and now look what happens.  Maybe he's just upset because nobody wanted to hire him?   :


----------



## teddy49 (21 Nov 2005)

I wish people would quit saying that we are unregulated and unaccountable.   Our industry in Iraq is heavily regulated by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior.   If your company isn't registered with the MOI than you are operating illegally.   We have ROEs like everyone else and they are as restrictive if not more restrictive than the ROE's that MNFI operates under.

I've read the language of the South African law, and the plain language translation of it, as well as one company's lawyer's legal opinions of the laws.   It's a horrible piece of legislation that is immensely broad in it's scope.   Even though I'm not a SA citizen or resident, I can be arrested and tried for breaking their law, should I decide to visit SA for holiday.   It gets worse, My bank manager or ANY employee of my financial intitution can be arrested for aiding me, since my account is in that Bank.   None of this is exaggeration, the law is that broad reaching.   The South Africans that work for my company, are all trying to emigrate somewhere else.

I'm not sure what a the author's, opinion is, but this about the 3rd article of his that I've read that talks about criminalizing PSC work


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2005)

Well dopey also thought it was a good idea arming the savages with M-2's and Grizzlies...


----------



## paracowboy (21 Nov 2005)

I keep sayin' it: It's time to cull the herd.
We could take this fool out into a field of mating clues, during clue mating season, capture one, hog-tie it for him, and he'd still leave clueless.
I say we take our dumbass friend into Darfur and the Sunni Triangle and leave him without a security team. Perhaps, just perhaps, his tune might change a smidge.


----------



## enfield (21 Nov 2005)

Soldiers can't work for PMC's, but he can sell-out to the Liberals? Interesting. 

Why is this even an issue for him? Its not like there's a Canadian version of Executive Outcomes out there (which is what the South African laws were meant to counter). Perhaps the good General should concentrate on improving the military, helping the CDS, and dealing with Africa rather than go off on political tangents. His grasp on the complexities and realities of this topic seems limited. 

But Dallaire said the issue is not whether private soldiers can do the job better than their counterparts in standing armies. The issue is the lack of accountability and oversight of such firms, he noted. In addition, Dallaire said that since money is the prime motivation of such companies and the individuals who work for them, there are questions about how that mightaffect how they do their jobs.
Given the known problems with UN troops, I would say that attempting to regulate and control blue-beret forces is far more important and timely and more within his arcs. They're doing more damage, under less supervision, than the average PMC.

Side Note: The South African and Nepalese laws seem a poor example - I still seem to hear about plenty of ex-Gurkhas and ex-SADF troops out there.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Nov 2005)

Well that makes all kinds of sense.

If an *officer* gains experience and training from the military, in leadership,logistics,management, a degree, (undergrad,masters or doctrate) he is permitted to use his military credentials and experience in any way he sees fit. This is even used as a recruiting tactic!(RMC is now training business grads)

If an* NCM*in the cbt arms is trained with skills that enable him to land a high paying civilian job, he is vilified as a mercenary, and campaigned against by members of our "friends of the Liberals" senate. 

If this is to be implemented, lets go all the way, and ban the practice of retired generals participating in the lucrative lecture circuit, and RMC grads from ever using their degrees beyond the CF. 

Thoughts?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Nov 2005)

GO I like it!     Maybe Romeo is still winsing from the mercenaries (French Foreign Legion) that cause him so much grief working on the wrong side of the Rwandan crises. I thought that CARE Canada employees that well known SA private army?

EDIT:typo


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Nov 2005)

teddy49 said:
			
		

> I wish people would quit saying that we are unregulated and unaccountable.   Our industry in Iraq is heavily regulated by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior.   If your company isn't registered with the MOI than you are operating illegally.   We have ROEs like everyone else and they are as restrictive if not more restrictive than the ROE's that MNFI operates under.



And who is regulating the IMOI?


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2005)

The Iraqi Gov't, and Iraq is a (theoretically) sovreign nation. And just so some of the rather smug folk who read this can understand CANADA does hire these companies as well.


This is not a repeat of "Dog's of War" this is the "uparmoured" version of Brinks.


As much as I'd like to take over a small Carribean or African Island


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Nov 2005)

You mean that great time-honoured bastion of democracy, the Iraqi government?   ;D   All is well, then.

At least Mr. Dallaire is not one of those senators that takes vacations at our expense.   Arguably, he is doing his job by stimulating debate.   I guess the concern is that if this is misguided, the other senators will need to come to the same conclusions as those expressing misgivings here.

Given the lack of military experience amongst our politicians....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Well that makes all kinds of sense.
> 
> If an *officer* gains experience and training from the military, in leadership,logistics,management, a degree, (undergrad,masters or doctrate) he is permitted to use his military credentials and experience in any way he sees fit. This is even used as a recruiting tactic!(RMC is now training business grads)
> 
> ...



GO!!   C'mon...plenty of officers have found work with PMCs too...(MPRI is filled with Cols and higher, for instance).   The argument is hardly aimed at NCMs.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Nov 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> GO!!   C'mon...plenty of officers have found work with PMCs too...(MPRI is filled with Cols and higher, for instance).   The argument is hardly aimed at NCMs.



I'm not stating that it is, but if we are going to restrict the activities of our troops, with the use of a legacy clause in their contracts, it should apply to all - officers and enlisted men.

I'm not speaking solely on the topic of employees of PMCs, either. I mean no RMC engineers being allowed to use their creds on civvie street, logistics officers not being allowed to gain employment in supply chain management, the whole nine yards. Lets do it once, properly and equitably the first time.

This would have the added beneficial effect of keeping people like Dallaire from representing us on the world stage, since thats not what we intended him to use his trg for.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Nov 2005)

> This would have the added beneficial effect of keeping people like Dallaire from representing us on the world stage, since thats not what we intended him to use his trg for.



Since you put it that way, it's a wonderful idea!   ;D


----------



## Slim (21 Nov 2005)

I'd like to say that I'm dissagreeably surprised by what a former General of the Cf has just come out and siad...But I'm not.

Politics, it seems, can corrupt even the best of us. For those who wish an example of this I refer you to the Conservative Defense critic Mr. (former Gen) O'Conner, who has spouted all kinds of foolish ideas in the name of discrediting the Libs.

I would like to know exactly who's (if anyone's) agenda is being pursued by this  incredibly stupid and short-sighted statement. All Dallaire has done is tell former servicemen and women that the one place for them to emply the skills that they've spent a life time learning is no longer open to them.

A Canadian citizen who breaks the law in a foreign country is oe thing, but tarring allPMC's with the same bush is stupid...And I'd be willing to guess that he knows it.

Poilitics, it seems, as struck at the members of the CF yet again.

Slim


----------



## starlight_cdn (22 Nov 2005)

> "They protect government officials and aid agency workers, train police and soldiers, and guard important installations such as oil refineries and power plants."


Sounds like a horrible job. Let's ban it
  





> "It's difficult to ban Canadians from doing anything," said Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "We have an open economy and we have freedom of movement."


Thankfully, our rampant liberalism is good for something.


> Dallaire said. "If I had any influence"


With the upcoming election, this will be forgotten as the politicions fight over very important things like who is more corrupt. Politicions have the attention span of the last public opinion poll. PMCs are not a concern of regular Canadians. 

Besides, Dallaire is a "has been", made a Senator because he will tow the line. I'm not surprised by his response it is typical of his generation of snr officer. Thinking loyalty means saying "yes" all the time.


----------



## Devon Best (22 Nov 2005)

The problem with the PMC is basically that everyone sees them as one thing, Mercenaries, and to put it bluntly, yeah you could call them that.  But that's the unfortunate thing, is that's how Dallaire is seeing things, and that is probably how others view it. It's just like the other issue of the $12 billion for the budget, it's because people are uneducated about the issue that it is frowned upon.

I'm not in the CF yet, but I plan to be joining the Reserves soon, and after University, possibly full service, and Private Sector has always been an issue that is on my mind. I'm glad I saw this post, opened my eyes a little, I was a little niave at first, didn't know these companies were so open.


----------



## Slim (22 Nov 2005)

Devon Best said:
			
		

> The problem with the PMC is basically that everyone sees them as one thing, Mercenaries, and to put it bluntly, yeah you could call them that.



You sound like you don't know very much about the private security industry. They aren't mercenaries at all, any more than a mall security guard is. PMC's are providing CP officers and static guard positions to others who need the protection from insurgents and Taliban.

There are people on thi site who are gainfully employed by PMC's on this site who probably would not be too happy with your uninformed opinions.


  





> I'm not in the CF yet, but I plan to be joining the Reserves soon, and after University, possibly full service, and Private Sector has always been an issue that is on my mind. I'm glad I saw this post, opened my eyes a little, I was a little niave at first, didn't know these companies were so open.



Then be quiet and watch and learn.


----------



## Long in the tooth (22 Nov 2005)

I for one would be more reassured if there was a ban placed on Canadian Terrorists, but Omar Khadr seems to have gained a lot of sympathy.   I guess this class of law breakers is exempt.


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2005)

Devon Best said:
			
		

> The problem with the PMC is basically that everyone sees them as one thing, Mercenaries, and to put it bluntly, yeah you could call them that.



 :-*



> *Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.*
> Art 47 Mercenaries
> 
> 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
> ...



Security Contractors fail both items A and B - as they are not conducting offensive operations, but simply securing either a person or place from harm.
 In both Afghanistan and Iraq the contractors legislated by both the US Department of State and the Host Nation Government.





   


> I'm not in the CF yet, but I plan to be joining the Reserves soon, and after University, possibly full service, and Private Sector has always been an issue that is on my mind. I'm glad I saw this post, opened my eyes a little, I was a little niave at first, didn't know these companies were so open.



Kid there is lane everyone has, and your way out of it.  Nice avatar BTW  :

Oh and welcome


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2005)

Best,

Don't worry, about these guys, join the reserves, and as soon as you're finished SQ the "mercs" will be banging on your door offering $1000/day contracts to protect high value targets.

They get their lists of candidates from contacts in the DND - and they know everything!! 

The "private sector" is something you don't really need any special training for anyway, you just buy some Oakleys and show up. Now, you were saying something about "uneducated people"??

Sweet avatar by the way....did you put it up before or after SOAC?


----------



## Devon Best (22 Nov 2005)

Heh, thanks for the warm welcome...  



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> The "private sector" is something you don't really need any special training for anyway, you just buy some Oakleys and show up. Now, you were saying something about "uneducated people"??



I never said I'd join Private Sector, but I have a pair of foakley's, think they'd let me in then?  

Look, I'm not trying to get flamed here, I was just offering my opinion, and I guess I made an idiot of myself.  

But the only way the public is going to have a change of opinion is if there is an actual campaign to try and educate people.  I haven't seen any being put out there, and I consider(ed) myself more informed than most regarding the military and politics, and obviously I'm wrong. Past that though, how is there going to be any change of the public's opinion if no one does anything about it.

And if there are member's of PMC's here, wouldn't it be in their best interest to try and avoid this whole issue being banned by the Senate?


----------



## Slim (22 Nov 2005)

Devon said:
			
		

> Heh, thanks for the warm welcome...
> 
> I never said I'd join Private Sector, but I have a pair of foakley's, think they'd let me in then?
> 
> ...



Devon

I make my living as a CP officer inToronto Canada. I protect the CEO and upper management of a large company in the GTA. Does that make me a Mercenary?! After all the PMC's are doing roughly the same job I am, just in a different country. Some good friends of mine who work for PMC's and are on this site (and I can garuntee one of whom saw your post and is rather pissed about it) shake their heads at the stuff people say about what they do in Iraq and A'stan.

These people are highly trained professionals who earn every cent that they make by keeping other people alive in a really crappy place in the world. Every day they are willing to stand in between their charges (principles) and criminals who have no respect for life what so ever.

I have the utmost respect for them and freely admit that I do not have the quals to deploy and work in the enviorment that they do.


The last thing   they or the PMC's in general need is a bunch of mis enformed people all shooting their faces off over this issue. If you do not understand an issue then ask a question or two...don't just jump in and start to spout off...Especially here. What gets said on this site can follow you around during your CF career!

Lots of people come here and you never know who's watching (and reading)

Please read more, post less and stay in your lane.

Slim
StAFF


----------



## Devon Best (22 Nov 2005)

Well then, this is fun.

I'm certainly glad to know I've managed to piss people off already...  

Sorry to anyone I may of offended. I didn't mean to insult.  What I meant was that the public is misinformed (me being one of them) and that people can be confused as to what a mercenary is and what a PMC does. That's all I meant. I wasn't trying to make enemies.

Cheers...


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Nov 2005)

> If an officer gains experience and training from the military, in leadership,logistics,management, a degree, (undergrad,masters or doctrate) he is permitted to use his military credentials and experience in any way he sees fit. This is even used as a recruiting tactic!(RMC is now training business grads)
> 
> If an NCMin the cbt arms is trained with skills that enable him to land a high paying civilian job, he is vilified as a mercenary, and campaigned against by members of our "friends of the Liberals" senate.



Beautiful!

Why is it 99% of the posters who crap talk "mercenaries" (ohh scarry name evil) are young, inexperienced and/or RTFO? 
Perhaps not so much in this thread but a search will show you exactly where all these debates go.
If your a civilian stick to JTF threads.


----------



## Kal (23 Nov 2005)

Well, at least Devon has a pretty good attitude.  He didn't start a flame war, took his licks and the gentle cues and didn't fight back about it.  That's a good attitude to have, keep it up and you'll receive more respect around here and in your future career, much more than most that that did the opposite of you.  Good on you, bro'.  Welcome to Army.ca


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2005)

Devon,

 Please understand with 1 post you 1) Announced you thought that Security Contractors could be construced as Merc's 2) Announced you felt informed about matters 3) Pointed out you where still in highschool and where planning on joining the reserves 4) Had a JTF-2 avatar.

 If you put those four items as a field of reference to people who have been in the CF for a long time, and are now employed in a secondary field that you are badmouthing from a position of ignorance, you should be able to see why some might be a bit miffed.


----------



## stevenstaples (23 Nov 2005)

Was away for a while - 

Glad you caught the Nov 11 special on TVO - I enjoyed the program, despite having to go down to TO and back in the same day. Good to meet Gen MacKenzie and the others. Don't agree on everything, but have to respect people for their accomplishments. 

I thought the mercs series was a terrific contribution to our understanding of a little-known industry that Canadians are involved in. FYI - Defense News recently reported that South Africa was trying to ban nationals from working for private security firms. The legacy of Executive Outcomes...

Interesting to see Graham going with the least controversial of Hiller's shopping list, the Hercs replacements. You might think Polaris had an operative in the PMO from this quote by an unnamed official: "we must serve the needs of the troops, not the defence contractors or lobbyists." Then Graham had less than generous words for all the retired generals-turned-lobbyists. Always thinking of the soldiers first, those generals are...

Steve


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2005)

I think that Ruxted [sp?] guy is involved with Polaris as well.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Nov 2005)

I'm wondering how far Sen Romeo is willing to take this.  Every former sapper or a/t that's employed in demining ops for NGO's around the world should quit?  Never mind the thousands (no exaggeration) of lives saved by these people who put their spam on the line every day for people they'll never even meet.  Different skill set as a bullet catcher, but learned in the same place, no?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2005)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> You might think Polaris had an operative in the PMO from this quote by an unnamed official: "we must serve the needs of the troops, not the defence contractors or lobbyists."



HEY, you can't steal that - that's Army.ca's line!


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2005)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> I thought the mercs series was a terrific contribution to our understanding of a little-known industry that Canadians are involved in. FYI - Defense News recently reported that South Africa was trying to ban nationals from working for private security firms. The legacy of Executive Outcomes...



Sir, this is where you have a poor understanding of EO, their role, the follow on companies of EO, and PSC's in general.   I made comments and attached the relevant chapter (47) of the Protocol Additions to the GC, in the other thread regarding Senator Dallaire commentary.   South Africa, and all of Africa has had enormous experience with the effects of employing mercenary armies, however South Africa is not Canada.   South Africa's legislature is based upon fear, fear of the use of true mercenary armies on both it and its neighbours.   This legislation they beleive will provide them with security, a false set of security, based on the faulty premise that former armed forces members are a threat to the nation and predisposed to join "outlaw" mercenary armies.   I know a few ex EO employees, some that even came back to the CF after a stint with EO.   

 Secondly what about retired CF or Law Enforcement personnel that take up jobs out side of Canada but inside the North American hemisphere?   I know of a few jobs working in the carribean for the host nation governments to provide security to their magistrates, since their police are either to incompetant or corrupt (or both) to do that mission.   Now these protection jobs are protecting gov't public servants from criminals (mostly dealing with money laundering rulings).   I doubt anyone of sound mind, could form a rationale argument to legislate a stop to those activities.

 If you take it further how is the Private Security Detail to a foreign national in Afghanistan or Iraq, or an NGO in a dangerous climate any different?

Quite simply it is not, the problem is a lot of people do not understand the role and mission of CPP operatives, and thus it is human nature to fear what they dont understand, no one likes to admit fear, so they revert back to something they can blame to make their cause just.



Edit for spelling/punctuation (and likely still needs more too)


----------



## GO!!! (23 Nov 2005)

.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2005)

Put the pecker contest away - he was agreeing with you and condemning the armchair crowd who has no clue about how the private world operates.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Nov 2005)

What refreshing irony.  Instead of having government intrude where it believes free market has failed, we have free market security solutions for places governments fear or despise to tread (the shitty little conflicts of the world and the people caught up in them).


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2005)

Actually in a lot of areas it is supporting the gov't entities -- look at Iraq and Afghan a LOT of mission are in support of the US Department of State for their own integral security the DSS is not numerous enough to look after the the personnel that currently need to be protected.

  It is an area where the market is filling the deficiet in Gov't security assets.  Secondly the compnaies that are operating in Iraq and Afghan (and expect to see major profits latter down the line) are required by their insurance companies to provide security both for the capital assets and human ones.


Lastly you never get gov't pers in some of these positions - their union who bitch to high heaven...


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2005)

Maybe PMC's are considered to be some sort of ex-post facto threat to Quebec independence. I could see many corporations hiring armed security guards to protect their physical assets in a fledgling breakaway state that is dissolving into civil war. In fact, I can see some towns and village hiring them.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> In fact, I can see some towns and village hiring them.



Wow, ain't that something - I seem to recall the city-states of Italy doing this in the 14th century.  _Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose_, no?


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2005)

I'll be your huckleberry.  ;D

 In fact I think 10 or so posters here (in the biz) would consider it as well...

But only in summer months -- I don't do cold anymore


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2005)

Well why not? If certain towns and villages decide they don't want to be yanked into something they don't want to be a part of and yet lack the capability to take a firm stand, they can always buy protection to preserve the nationality they were born into if thats their choice. I can't see the feds moving in until the PQ start shooting- and they will have to start shooting if they think they are going to pull the unwilling under their umbrella. It's time we as a country face that fact.   


P.S.: I guess we can thank Senator Dallaire for this soon to be heated debate.


----------



## GO!!! (23 Nov 2005)

"Today you will be conducting a combat parachute descent onto DZ Plains of Abraham....."


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> "Today you will be conducting a combat parachute descent onto DZ Plains of Abraham....."



LOL- hope they didn't put a paved parking lot there.


----------



## hhour48 (2 Dec 2005)

'Trophy' video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers

Published: 28 Nov 2005

The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on "route Irish", a road that links the airport to Baghdad

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11157.htm


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

Day late and a dollar short - but thanks for coming out.  :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36923.0.html


----------



## hhour48 (2 Dec 2005)

lol i swear i did a search, using "aegis" as keyword, and that thread did not come up 
oh well


----------



## GO!!! (2 Dec 2005)

I have to say, after watching that video, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

Those vehicles have big signs on them telling the locals to stay away, or they will be fired upon. To me, it's not a difficult concept, especially in the land of suicide bombers, kidnappings and VIEDs.

Consider what would happen if you took a run at local police forces' checkpoint during the holiday season, and sped towards them, when there were signs to the contrary. You would be shot - and rightfully so. The fact that these PMC's lived to tell the tale means that they were doing something right - it just was'nt putting the film on the web.


----------

