• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mega U.S. embassy in Iraq..why?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SAWYER said:
I was listening to No Agenda today and one of the hosts played a clip from some State Department employee who has a book out or coming out and he is claiming the embassy is the largest in the world and that there will be 1000's of armed mercenaries/security out of it and it will have it's own air defense..wtf? Any credibility to this?
Click to expand...

Hell!! Gotta have somewhere to store all the $Billions$ of missing cash we lost in Iraq.
 
cybrsage said:
I hear people using the term "mercenary" when they are simply hired guards. According to the people here, every mall in the US is manned by mercenaries...
Click to expand...

Ok, by that logic. Who do you think the US State Department would hire? Paul Blart or a bunch of XE (Blackwater) guys? 🙄

BTW, I was listening to C-Span the other day and there is actually going to be a total of about 20,000 staying behind after the "withdrawal".....lol
 
KlokWyze said:
Ok, by that logic. Who do you think the US State Department would hire? Paul Blart or a bunch of XE (Blackwater) guys? 🙄

BTW, I was listening to C-Span the other day and there is actually going to be a total of about 20,000 staying behind after the "withdrawal".....lol
Click to expand...

Not 20,000 military though. State department said all along they would stay, and they (and their employees\mercenaries) don't need a status of forces agreement to shield them from legal consequences, they're all covered under diplomatic immunity.
 
Nebor said:
That place is a fortress. We knew that that State Department would be ramping up their security forces with the withdrawal of US military forces. State has been recruiting pretty aggressively among US Army NCOs and officers.

These contractors won't be asked to leave, because they provide the security for Iraq's leaders too. They also contribute plenty of cash to those leaders' coffers while being paid out of the public's funds.
Click to expand...

fuck that
 
Jhhnn said:
Mall cops don't have blackhawks, mraps, heavy machine guns, body armor & the other goodies that embassy "security" will have.

All things considered, it's reasonable to refer to them as Mercenaries, because that's what they are. We're not talking about Barney Fife with a single bullet in his shirt pocket.
Click to expand...

Then you consider the Secret Service to be mercenaries as well.
 
Nebor said:
Not 20,000 military though. State department said all along they would stay, and they (and their employees\mercenaries) don't need a status of forces agreement to shield them from legal consequences, they're all covered under diplomatic immunity.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck are mercs covered by diplomatic immunity? They are in no way diplomats.
 
It is not an embassy but rather a base, this isn't really in denial. It is far too large to fit conventional definition of an embassy.
 
Craig234 said:
Remember the reason we're leaving this year: the Iraqi government refused to continue to make all US forces immune to Iraqi law, which they have been.
Click to expand...

There is good reason not to be in a nation which does not exempt our military from some of their laws. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive. US Military Women are exempt from that when they are performing their official duties. If they were not, every time a US Military Woman drove a car she would have to receive several lashes.

Basically, a blanket statement about exemption being good or bad cannot be used...it is too convoluted for that.

🙂
 
Doppel said:
It is not an embassy but rather a base, this isn't really in denial. It is far too large to fit conventional definition of an embassy.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Iraqi government is playing both sides of the issue. They need to demand the US pull out of Iraq for political reasons, but they know they need our help still.

The solution...a huge embassy that has everything needed to also be a base.
 
WelshBloke said:
How long is it going to be kept?
How long is it going to be staffed at these levels?
What's going to happen to it afterwards?
What are this week's power ball numbers?
Click to expand...

It will be kept long enough to keep the Chinese out of Iraq after the U.S. troops are gone.

It will be staffed at these levels as long as it takes to keep China out of Iraq.

Nothing will happen to it afterwards, it will be staffed and funded as long as needed to keep China out of Iraq.

4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42
 
Craig234 said:
IRAN%20START%20WAR%20CROP_5.preview_0.jpg
Click to expand...

Damn bush running again in 2012 starting a war with Iran.
 
Genx87 said:
Damn bush running again in 2012 starting a war with Iran.
Click to expand...

The problem, as annoying as it is, is that Bush is the face of the Neo Con. His administration is the epitome of neoconism, and all that comes with it. Bush was just a puppet, like Obama, the real machinery is under the hood, and behind the scenes.
 
xj0hnx said:
The problem, as annoying as it is, is that Bush is the face of the Neo Con. His administration is the epitome of neoconism, and all that comes with it. Bush was just a puppet, like Obama, the real machinery is under the hood, and behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

You mean Darth Cheney and Turd Blossom?
 
WelshBloke said:
Why the fuck are mercs covered by diplomatic immunity? They are in no way diplomats.
Click to expand...

Basically everyone involved in a diplomatic mission is covered. If the security is contracted instead of provided by the DoS, they're covered too. Just like Raymond Davis was covered under diplomatic immunity when he shot those Pakis, even though he was really a CIA agent.
 
cybrsage said:
Then you consider the Secret Service to be mercenaries as well.
Click to expand...

The Secret Service is career US govt employees, a division of the Treasury Dept, not privatized contractors. They're not nearly as heavily armed nor as well paid as security contractors in Iraq.
 
Jhhnn said:
The Secret Service is career US govt employees, a division of the Treasury Dept, not privatized contractors. They're not nearly as heavily armed nor as well paid as security contractors in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The football field is now 150 yards long. Can you move the goalpost further along?

How about you list your final requirements to change someone from being a paid security guard into a mercenary. Then we both will know what you are talking about.

Right now, it appears neither one of us can make heads of tails of your position. Other than "We hates them, we do...they are mercenaries, they are"
 
cybrsage said:
The football field is now 150 yards long. Can you move the goalpost further along?

How about you list your final requirements to change someone from being a paid security guard into a mercenary. Then we both will know what you are talking about.

Right now, it appears neither one of us can make heads of tails of your position. Other than "We hates them, we do...they are mercenaries, they are"
Click to expand...

Such a nasty little troll. False equivalency & a strawman in the same post.

Dragging the Secret Service into the discussion wasn't moving the goalposts, was it? Who did that, anyway?

And it's not like I've expressed any disdain for our mercenaries in Iraq, at all. They are what they are, and I suspect they'll serve the intended purpose. I wonder if the Iraqi man in the street will draw any distinction between them and actual American soldiers, however. Not likely. It'll probably fool Americans, however, and cost us more at the same time.

Or are you saying that mall cops serve as occupation forces for parts of foreign countries, and Secret Service agents do too?

Wow- I never knew!
 
Jhhnn said:
...lots of words that do not clarify position at all...
Click to expand...

You did not clarify your position. It is very hard to discuss something when you keep changing the parameters of the discussion.

Solidify them and we can continue. So far, the only thing you say is needed to be called a mercenary is lots of military power.

Is that it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top