Media Bias?

OrnotBitwise

OrnotBitwise

Watermelon
Have any of you ever seen or heard any mainstream media outlet, of whatever alleged bent, refer to the Blackwater employees and similar "contractors" in Iraq by their proper name?

These are mercenaries. That's what they are.

Main Entry:1mer·ce·nary
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural mer·ce·nar·iesEtymology:Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages — more at mercyDate:14th century : one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

They're not "contractors", they're mercenaries. Why are our media all playing along with the administration by not using the proper word for what they are?

And does ANYONE really believe they're cheaper -- e.g. more cost effective -- than legitimate soldiers would be? If you find someone who does believe it I want to sell him or her some shares in a big orange bridge I own out here.

I think Salman Rushdie had it right. The reason we have all of these mercenaries in Iraq is that otherwise, we'd need a draft.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Have any of you ever seen or heard any mainstream media outlet, of whatever alleged bent, refer to the Blackwater employees and similar "contractors" in Iraq by their proper name?

These are mercenaries. That's what they are.

Main Entry:1mer·ce·nary
Pronunciation: \?m?r-s?-?ner-?, -ne-r?\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural mer·ce·nar·iesEtymology:Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages — more at mercyDate:14th century : one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

They're not "contractors", they're mercenaries. Why are our media all playing along with the administration by not using the proper word for what they are?

And does ANYONE really believe they're cheaper -- e.g. more cost effective -- than legitimate soldiers would be? If you find someone who does believe it I want to sell him or her some shares in a big orange bridge I own out here.

I think Salman Rushdie had it right. The reason we have all of these mercenaries in Iraq is that otherwise, we'd need a draft.
Click to expand...

This is another symptom of the incompetance of this administration of ideolgues. I'm not going to make sweeping generalizations against all Republicans and conservatives. Most of them are not this incompetant.

They have placed themselves in a pretty bad ethical light that shows what their true values are. We are incurring outrages debts in order to pay for this war. Someday, our foreign financers will stop loaning us money and then where will they be?

This administration has placed it's tax ideology above national security and national interest. Republicans refuse a tax increase, even a progresive one that fairly distributes the cost, to pay for this war. Their own interests are apparently more important than the nation.

And that's the problem with the draft and hiring mercenaries. They can't institute a draft because there would be a fair sharing of the blood spent on this war. It would cause their political backers to ask hard questions and they would lose political capital. In addition, they can't borrow that kind of money to support a national draft. It could only be paid for with a tax hike and if the cause is just and neccessary, the American people have historically shown that they will make that sacrifice. So they now have to take a stop gap meaure in hiring mercenaries but they have to borrow the money to even do that.

This is a house of cards that will eventually collapse from it's own dead weight.
 
the economy is fine
let the republicans hang themselves with Irag
Hillary can get us out and make the economy even better.
 
Warren said:
Let's hypothetically say that I did. How would you prove me wrong?
Click to expand...
Speaking, now, of the mercenaries hired directly by our government or whose services are secured by means of U.S. government money.

The typical mercenary in Iraq is compensated at the rate of approximately $120,000 annually. The typical U.S. soldier is compensated at a considerably lower rate. Taking an extreme case, an E9 with 30 years in would only receive about $48,000. Other grades make far less. Now, pay is only part of the expense, it's true, but the same can be said of the mercenary soldier as well.

We're paying far more for these bastards than we are for legitimate soldiers, and with far less accountability.
 
Geeee who has more credibility on the economy a sucessfull and well to do businessman with an MBA and years of experience........or a paranoid troll...........

I vote for the Troll! (NOT!)
 
Mottleydude said:
Geeee who has more credibility on the economy a sucessfull and well to do businessman with an MBA and years of experience........or a paranoid troll...........

I vote for the Troll! (NOT!)
Click to expand...

"NOT!" Did you learn that from Blossom?

Motley Dude = Blossom

1810.jpg
 
Blackwater is the modern Praetorian Guard. Private soldiers used to protect and preserve the desires of the highest bidder. It is absolutely crazy to pretend they are there for "security". They are Mercs plain and simple. The fact that the United States now uses a mercenary force to do it's bidding show how far off the track we have strayed.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Have any of you ever seen or heard any mainstream media outlet, of whatever alleged bent, refer to the Blackwater employees and similar "contractors" in Iraq by their proper name?

These are mercenaries. That's what they are.

Main Entry:1mer·ce·nary
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural mer·ce·nar·iesEtymology:Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages — more at mercyDate:14th century : one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

They're not "contractors", they're mercenaries. Why are our media all playing along with the administration by not using the proper word for what they are?

And does ANYONE really believe they're cheaper -- e.g. more cost effective -- than legitimate soldiers would be? If you find someone who does believe it I want to sell him or her some shares in a big orange bridge I own out here.

I think Salman Rushdie had it right. The reason we have all of these mercenaries in Iraq is that otherwise, we'd need a draft.
Click to expand...

:P

If using mercenaries means we don't have to spill more blood of our young people, then use them.
 
all this warhawking will certainly benefit the dems in 08.
It's obvious 2/3 of the american people have had enough of the Ghestapo!!!:clink:
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Speaking, now, of the mercenaries hired directly by our government or whose services are secured by means of U.S. government money.

The typical mercenary in Iraq is compensated at the rate of approximately $120,000 annually. The typical U.S. soldier is compensated at a considerably lower rate. Taking an extreme case, an E9 with 30 years in would only receive about $48,000. Other grades make far less. Now, pay is only part of the expense, it's true, but the same can be said of the mercenary soldier as well.

We're paying far more for these bastards than we are for legitimate soldiers, and with far less accountability.
Click to expand...

In Milton's "Utopia" he advocated the use of an all mercenary army. It decreases the amount of greedy, warmongering people in the nation, and in other nations as well.

Why should we waste the blood of our young soldiers, instead of just using greedy bastards? If you want accountabillity, put more in. But it's no like they're used on the offense anyway. They're only used to relieve our regular soldiers of purely defensive actions. AS for the cost... so what? Military pay is only a minority of the military's budget as it is, anyway. And if it means saving more American lives and not forcing unwilling people into the military against their will, then it's worth it.
 
Watermark said:
It kind of changes your perspective on things, US, whenever you are the person being asked to have the burden put on you.
Click to expand...

Umm I have already bore that burden and not by choice either.
So I have earned the right to my opinion on that issue.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm I have already bore that burden and not by choice either.
So I have earned the right to my opinion on that issue.
Click to expand...

No you haven't, you bear no responsibility on this and have no right to talk about MY life while you sit lazily back and want to save a few tax bucks on merceneries by sending me out to die. What a selfish BASTARD you are.
 
"...the British hired about 30,000 soldiers from German princes, these soldiers were called "Hessians" because many of them came from Hesse-Kassel. The troops were mercenaries in the sense of professionals who were hired out by their prince. Germans made up about one-third of the British troop strength in North America (during the Revolutionary War)."

What we need are more Hessians! And Prince Erik is here to provide them, err...Erik Prince I mean.

More Hessians, More Hessians, More Hessians!!

We've got lots of money!... Hire more Hessians! God save Prince Erik!
 
Watermark said:
No you haven't, you bear no responsibility on this and have no right to talk about MY life while you sit lazily back and want to save a few tax bucks on merceneries by sending me out to die. What a selfish BASTARD you are.
Click to expand...

True since I never voted for Bush I do bear no responsibility for "this" ;)
Nor did I ever support the Iraq invasion.
 
Watermark said:
In Milton's "Utopia" he advocated the use of an all mercenary army. It decreases the amount of greedy, warmongering people in the nation, and in other nations as well.

Why should we waste the blood of our young soldiers, instead of just using greedy bastards? If you want accountabillity, put more in. But it's no like they're used on the offense anyway. They're only used to relieve our regular soldiers of purely defensive actions. AS for the cost... so what? Military pay is only a minority of the military's budget as it is, anyway. And if it means saving more American lives and not forcing unwilling people into the military against their will, then it's worth it.
Click to expand...
In a purely abstract case I might go for such a policy. My support would be predicated on a number of conditions, however, to which our government would never agree. Most of all I'd stipulate that we must be honest about the policy and admit what we're doing.

One of the reasons we're using mercenaries in the first place is to hide from the American people just how many soldiers we really have in Iraq. I find this doubly infuriating because it is both abusively secretive and unnecessarily expensive. If we used legitimate soldiers for these tasks -- as we have traditionally -- we'd be more open and transparent while saving money at the same time. That's an unusual win-win scenario.

It can be argued that we'd never get enough volunteers to provide these services unless we're willing to pay mercenary level wages. This may be true. I'm not sure so I'm wiling to concede the point. That fact in itself should tell us something about how much the American people really support this war, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top