This idiot should have probably brushed up on Nicaraguan history before cozying up with the same movement that sent death squads to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Nicaraguan citizens. Google Iran-Contra. On second thought, considering his sociopathic demeanor, susceptibility to propaganda and military status, maybe this guy was a deathsquad mercenary in his youth.

>> ^burdturgler:

A monopoly on violence in comparison to allowing violence (military actions) to be carried out by the private sector (contractors). Which was obviously his point. Should governments have control of their military forces? Yes. Should governments (specifically the US) allow their sovereignty and integrity to become diluted by sub-contracting out the enforcement of their foreign policy objectives to mercenary groups? No.


Isn't the difference between a contractors and volunteers rather small? At present, the way in which they operate via command in control is vastly different an in need of an overhaul, but the defining characteristic at the base level are actually rather similar don't you think? Most people join the military for the check and the benefits at the end, same might be said of mercs for hire, the cash is what they are after. As far as I can see it, the only real distinction is that the former military have all roots anchored to the government, where as private is just that. In the end, it is still just citizens shooting guns at other people that the government says to; it doesn't jeopardize their monopoly on force, just a slight change of how to realize it.

Likewise, I don't see our sovereignty being diluted because the military has Lockhead make planes for them, or have some private company make an OS for their accounting department. It would seem rather insane to require all military assets be solely owned, managed, executed, and developed independently of the private options available. It seems rather arbitrary to say it is ok in every other function of the military except the fighting part. Being that the government is still saying who and what to attack to the mercs it doesn't seem to really violate any monopoly on force.

I find the whole argument rather interesting on force. How can the government have that power which in and of ourselves we do not have; the power over if a man lives or dies. It is an interesting conversation most likely beyond the scope of this rant, however

Anywho, It does seem like the current implementation of mercs is poor, at best. But to my knowledge it is really the first time it has been done on this scale before...problems go with that territory. I do see it as a potential hazard in the same way the FED is. If you give away your responsibility to an antonymous entity, you can't expect it to behave as you would like all the time. In that they control the fate of other humans in their hands, perhaps that is just to big a risk to take.

A monopoly on violence in comparison to allowing violence (military actions) to be carried out by the private sector (contractors). Which was obviously his point. Should governments have control of their military forces? Yes. Should governments (specifically the US) allow their sovereignty and integrity to become diluted by sub-contracting out the enforcement of their foreign policy objectives to mercenary groups? No.

This was uploaded in July of '08. I'm not really surprised that was his stance on military contractors engaged in fighting back during the election. It seems common sense that the US hiring mercenaries to do jobs that should be done by the Military is not a very good idea. I would say the practice is transparently corrupt and irresponsible.

What I'd really be interested to know is what his record has been like as president, after inheriting all of these contracts with private security firms. Has he caused a significant reduction in our dependence on highly paid mercinaries? I'd look it up myself but I don't know where to begin at getting a straight answer.

@rougy

This guy made the choice to fly across the world and try his hand killing the inhabitants of some third world country for money, they captured him and suddenly he wants forgiveness? If he wasn't captured he'd still be out murdering someone on the countryside. Why should I pity this guy, or care whether he makes it home? Why would it make me wrong, and why am I responsible to grieve for a mercenary? He doesn't respect his own life, much less the lives of others.

You say you don't like war, you don't like invasion, you don't like killing - yet you support the soldiers who execute the order? Doesn't make sense to me what is your morality and what is your life for? What kind of world do you want to live in? How do you live in this world with respect to the world you want it to be?

What time is it? Its time for me to live and be happy. What time is it for him? Who knows, looks like his time is about up...I get to live and he gets to die. Why? Because he chose war and I chose peace.

You couldn't get me to pull the trigger if you put a gun to my head -- this guy volunteered.

It doesn't make it any less tragic or unacceptable, but at least when our forces kill civilians it's generally accidental.
(Mercenary rogues notwithstanding.)

Take it from a Massachusett's resident. This guy will say anything, and do anything to get elected to office. He will be your best buddy one moment, and then turn on you, if someone offers him a better deal, the next. He's not a mercenary, as any form of payment will be accepted, so long as its better then the previous form of payment: money, presidental office, women, divine status, etc. That makes him just dangerous.

Shouldn't be surprising, that not only the health care industry 'bought him', but that that he was saying alot of this garbage on Fox News. Yes, a 'news' station know for reporting the 'facts' and 'evidence', without bias or opinion.

I'm two days short of a year on unemployment myself. First time I've collected unemployment in my life, and after paying into the unemployment funds for 35 years, I don't feel bad in the slightest for collecting it. Especially since it doesn't actually cover our cost of living (which went up nearly 30% when I had to start paying the insurance that used to be paid by my employer). I worked for a fraction of the market value of my position, because I tremendously enjoyed the work and the people I worked with. Apparently I was just foolish and I should have been far more mercenary. Our finances are within a few weeks of bottoming out...the savings (admittedly not large) are gone. The 401K comes next, but after taxes and penalties, that'll last no more than a few months. And I'm beginning to suspect that I'm not going to get another job in the high tech field I've been working in for the last 25 years, apparently due to being 50+.

So, I'm more than a bit lost as to what to do next...compete with even more people for jobs that pay next to nothing? If I can't get work in my field, I don't think downshifting to other fields is going to be better. Funnily enough, according to our government, I can do a better job of taking care of my wife if I was dead. At least then, she'd be able to collect my social security, which would keep her from having to live in a cardboard box. My country...what a crock. "My" country clearly doesn't give a fuck about me, or anyone like me.

The next time someone tells me again how Joe Stack had it so rough...with his nice house and private fucking plane, I'll be hard put not to explode. I won't even begin to discuss Republican politicians. If I were to meet one face to face, I probably -would- end up with assault charges (if I could maintain control, it'd just be for spitting). I do understand rage. I still don't support violence, however tempting it may be.

They aren't even real mercenaries.

*promote

People should know what they are paying for. Our Taxes hard at work.

>> ^choggie:
"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.
Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?
There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!


There is consensus on this, regardless of how it fits into your world view. No internationally recognized scientific body holds a dissenting view on the reality of climate change. Not that there aren't exaggerated claims, politics and falsehoods from those who support the science side of the argument, but their actions do not discredit any of the standing research or the overwhelming consensus that climate change is real.

You are correct in saying I am ignorant of the specifics (as are you), which is why I choose take my 'bullshit script' from the 'so called experts' who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate change. You are free to take your 'bullshit script' from 'non experts' if you like, but it comes at the cost of your credibility, and doubly so when you make goofball AlexJonesian claims about ENSLAVING THE WORLD!!!!1!!

On the surface, a phony global climate change scare would seem to be a pretty complicated and esoteric means of enslaving the world. Don't you think there might be better, more efficient ways of putting us all in bondage? Buying governments? Building high tech mercenary armies? Destroying economies and then offering aid at a large premium? Destroying democracy under the banner of 'individual rights' and then picking off those powerless 'individuals' one by one? Creating massive unemployment to exploit the existing labor force via supply and demand? Creating some kind of deadly plague with an expensive proprietary antidote? These are just off the top of my head, but all of them would seem to be simpler, more logical, more direct avenues for world enslavement. I don't know, I'm no expert on world slaving.

I've got some logical issues with the conspiracy theorists that maybe you can help me clear up:

-How can you 'follow the money' and end up siding with industrialist polluters who stand to lose a lot of money if they are forced to clean up their act?

-How were the masterminds of this nefarious plot able to coordinate and control the research of many thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades?

-How do you get from 'climate change' to world enslavement?

-Are the underpants gnomes somehow involved in this conspiracy?

1) Create a global climate change scare
2) ??????
3) Enslave the world

These conspiracy theories are vague, illogical and contradictory. In your response you throw out several possibilities a) It's real and caused solely by the sun (which is like saying tornadoes are caused solely by wind and have nothing to do with weather fronts) b) It's real and was intentionally created by the military (for some mysterious reason) c) It's a hoax to enslave the world through carbon taxes (but only polluting corporations pay these taxes).

It all comes out like a bunch of hastily though out nonsense, especially coming from someone who seems to think he has a monopoly on the truth. I'd love to hear an attempt to fashion these random bits into something vaguely plausible. Who might have engineered such a plot? How did they get the ball rolling? What was their overall plan from start to finish? How specifically might they parlay this into mass slavery? What do they intend to do with this massive slave force?

Obama’s total military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan; 225,000 military “contractors” (mercenaries and workers); and veterans’ costs. Add $75 billion (nearly four times Canada’s total defence budget) for 16 intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan “surge” of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion — more than Germany’s total defence budget. (source)

None of your suggestions would work. They have never worked.

The world does not magically get better by waiting around for the rich to figure out a way to get richer.

It would just put more money in your pocket for a little while, and that's all you want; that's as far as you can see.

You're promoting a world based on Randian delusion, motivated by greed.

That has never worked, and it never will.

After Afghanistan and Iraq, it'll be Iran. And sure, pull out some troops - send in some mercenaries.

Modern Warfare 4 will have the retired soldiers from Modern Warfare 3 heading for employment at private mercenary firms to be hired again by the US. Action includes hit squads, assassinations, torture. The Collectors Edition features a supply chain service simulator with the sole goal to obtain no bid contracts and maximize profits with minimal actual work. You aren't rated on the quality of service or whether military service members get sick or die. It is purely about the cash flow.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^Maybe. It could be a fuck-up of New Coke proportions.

But generally, I associate "brand" with products and selling- I'm not sure that the VideoSift brand is a selling product. Advertising here is a pretty anonymous affair- very little advertising based on our name alone - and VideoSift branded shirts aren't flying off the shelfs.

So if you take out the mercenary side of things - If VideoSift does have a brand- I would say that it's more to do with the culture, rules and people of the site - that has built up like a patina over time. That wouldn't change- unless everyone fucks off and goes somewhere else - always a possibility.

My cousin in currently a sniping instructor for Blackwater (or whatever the new company name is), but he has served 6 or 7 deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for the company. I've never been comfortable with the fact that he is essentially a mercenary, but god I hope he wasn't involved in some of this stuff. He's a good person and certainly this is not indicative of all Blackwater soldiers, but "mob mentality" and positions of authority over other humans has the power to corrupt anyone (the Stanford Prison Guard Experiment, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment).