Ducan Hunter official LIIIIIAAAAARRRR award

[nadinbrzezinski]

of the day

On C-SPAN we have discusion on HR 4200

Well Susan Davis questions the role of contractors... and does it well (GO SUSAN!)

Then Hunter states that for every troops with a rifle we need ten people suporting him (true) here comes the lie, he claims that Contractors have ALWAYS been there....

For this Hunter gets the Liar award of the day... it used to be that Logistics Command did that SUPORT Duncan, not Mercenaries... lets use the right name here, ok.

[Mountainman]

1. Contractors have been there but I think they are more prevalent now.

We had lots of contractors in Vietnam. Pacific Architects and Engineers and Philco Ford are two I remember. Also we had civilians from the companies that made some of the electronic gear we had.

But I think a few years back the military started to go to contractors big time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. It started with Chenney

as SecDef, big time....

The number of people suporting the boot on the ground wiht a rifle it was ten people from Logistics, now from what we are told, it is ten Mercenaries.... and yes lets use the term correctly

In Nam there was some suport, but nothing like the privatization we have right now.

And for that Duncan gets the liar award of the day.

Maybe should nominate him for the ten conservative morons of the week

[Tina H]

2. Not sure if its an out-and-out lie . . .

there have probably always been some mercenaries out in the field as far back as WWII or even earlier.

My point is that it is the number and the proportion of mercenaries (or "contractors") that matters here. I didn't see the interview. Hopefully the interviewer was prepared with stats on how the number and proportion of mercenaries has increased and proceeded to hit that idiot Hunter with a follow-up question about whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that the mercenary-proportion has drastically increased.

Personally, I think it is a bad thing. To be more specific, a very bad thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Tina in WW II

Trumman made sure that nobody got rich out of the war.

Willis Jeep went under in teh 50s because when all was said and done they were paid 10 cents on the dollar, with everybody else, a bill that Trumman pushed. What do you know? Some of those companies were actually honest, such as Willis Jeeps.

We did not have Mercs in the field, those really started to a point in Nam, but really under SecDef Chenney, in '92.

[Tina H]

6. I still suspect that we had at least one merc in the field in WWII . . .

it was a pretty big war. I still think it boils down to the numbers and proportions. And I think we both agree that the number and proportions have changed.

You raise a good point that the degree of political influence that mercenary corporations exert has increased drastically. Still, this issue is closely related to my point about numbers and proportions:

a handful of in-the-field mercenaries equals small contractor corporations, no political influence

several in-the-field mercenaries for every GI equals lots of in-the-field mercenaries, big contractor corporations and massive political influence

If we fix the proportions, then I think we go a long way to fixing the political influence problem.

On edit: I am not sure that a blanket, across the board no-mercenary rule is the answer. Just make sure the proportions become more like the way they were during WWII and Korea.

[rinsd]

4. Brown and Root has been involved since Vietnam...

I am not sure about contractor work beyond that.