Pawns In Colombia's Jungle; 3 Americans Abandoned By Own Government Saying, Hasta La Vista Boys

Simon says on Jun 2, 2008, 13:46:

My heart goes out to those three guys and their families (as well as to all the hostages) and I really hope they make it back safe one day.

"Tu vas a ver, llegaras a mi edad y veras que Colombia seguira igual"-----Simon Sr.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Jun 2, 2008, 13:47:

Simon, what Miami Neighborhood do you live in?

My Avatar-- Sarah Palin Says " "You know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?? Lipstick!" Now on a Short Verbal Tether by the Honorable John McCain

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Jun 2, 2008, 13:48:

I'm in Kendall, amigo....for now.

"Tu vas a ver, llegaras a mi edad y veras que Colombia seguira igual"-----Simon Sr.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 2, 2008, 13:50:

Miamimike, do you think it would have made the actual situation on the ground better for those 3 guys if Bush and Rice had made a big issue out of it while visiting Colombia? Like, perhaps, demanding that the FARC do the right thing and let them go?

I think it would have made their lives a lot worse.

The kind of things the US government does to get hostages back are very low-profile. You can compare it to the French handling of Ingrid B's captivity, and, in the end, you don't see any better result for her.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Jun 2, 2008, 14:49:

Hollywood, pretty much appears our Gov and Press has just forgotten about these guys. Same kind of thing happened during Vietnam so this is nothing new. And little was done in a low profile manner at this time.

Simon--so you are close to all the good Colombian Tabernas in Kendall! Lucky You! I don't get down that way much anymore except when I head down Krome ave to Homestead/keys and the good Mexican Restaurants.

My Avatar-- Sarah Palin Says " "You know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?? Lipstick!" Now on a Short Verbal Tether by the Honorable John McCain

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 2, 2008, 15:05:

appearances are deceiving sometimes, Mike.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bradenmiami says on Jun 2, 2008, 16:59:

The U.S. doesn't negotiate "terrorists", period.

Like any other special contract involving the work they were doing as contractors, you know you are going in with the U.S. support only until you get into trouble, then you're mostly on your own.

The "lovemedellin website" is a piece of crap made by some moron who has only been to Medellin once...you'd be better off reading the Lonely Planet advice from a guy who never even came here!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sam Salmon says on Jun 2, 2008, 21:54:

Doesn't 'contractor' mean mercenary?

' a la orden!'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jun 2, 2008, 21:59:

Yes they (contractors) might get license to dot dirty job that would look bad on a direct USA army official.

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lampltr says on Jun 3, 2008, 02:36:

Hollywood is right, someday when you least expect it.....How much is a contract for a group of Mercenaries?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jun 3, 2008, 07:25:

hmmmm..what am I missing? how did three guys flying around in a small general aviation aircraft turn into mercenaries?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jun 3, 2008, 07:28:

Slguy don´t you watch movies? Well IRL it gets worst. The guy shining shoes in reality could be a insider.

I don´t mean the three pilots were doing anything different, but that we both don´t really know.

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jun 3, 2008, 07:39:

my point exactly. I'm not saying they weren't or were...as i recall, they were spotting coca fields for eradication? who knows what they were really up to...I just was curious how they became mercenaries.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 3, 2008, 07:46:

Yes it applies...

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" (Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).[1]

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jun 3, 2008, 07:54:

So the poor Pakistanis and and Indians washing BDUs in the desert of Iraq are mercenaries? Or what about the French company Sodexho that serves food at US military bases?

I think the key phrase is "taking part" in the armed conflict. Contractors, i.e. outsourced support services, have been around for centuries.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 3, 2008, 08:48:

"have been around for centuries." And they shouldn't exist as they have their interests at stake

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 3, 2008, 09:59:

Go tell the French Foreign Legion that, Romy.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 3, 2008, 10:17:

I believe the French Foreign Legion is a branch of their army... am I wrong?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bickerss says on Jun 3, 2008, 10:24:

There was a good story on these three in Time magazine a few weeks ago. (or maybe newsweek)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 3, 2008, 11:00:

You're both right and wrong, Romy. It is a branch of the French army that employees foreign mercenaries, exclusively.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bufalo says on Jun 3, 2008, 13:27:

The weren't merceneries they were "security" people. Seriously, not sure if they were or not, but years ago I did run into several groups of them... it's been a while since I've seen any guys like that around, time's a-changin'!

"If you don't like it - lump it, take it down the road and dump it." - Archie Bunker played by Carroll O'Connor

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jun 3, 2008, 20:03:

This is exactly the type of thing that's keeping the US military out of Colombia. Its an unfortunate necessity similar to the US soldiers in Iraq that are killed every day. Its sad for them and their families, but if it was not for the difficult time that US is having in Iraq they would have invaded Syria and/or Iran by now destroying those countries and killing and displacing god knows how many more people. Capturing and killing the American mercenaries helps to restrain the US from becoming more deeply involved in Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 3, 2008, 20:44:

"Capturing and killing the American mercenaries helps to restrain the US from becoming more deeply involved in Colombia."
Though I detest US presence (military not civilian) in Colombia, this is too extreme Vlad

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jun 3, 2008, 22:33:

romy: I agree, without even having to address vladimiro's cold-hearted logic, which is very debatable and IMHO creates a false dilemma, simplifying both Colombia's and the Middle East's situation too much in order to give it some semblance of justification.

Ironically enough, that doesn't sound too far from what a certain General said about a certain massacre in 1928's Santa Marta.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Jun 3, 2008, 23:46:

I know a guy who was a contractor in Colombia several years ago. He flew a plane along an oil pipeline. His employer was BP. If he spotted bad guys trying to sabotage the pipeline, he called the information into the Colombian military. Anyway, he would probably be very offended at being called a mercenary.

BEWARE of gold diggers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Jun 3, 2008, 23:54:

Capturing and killing the American mercenaries helps to restrain the US from becoming more deeply involved in Colombia."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used to think this also but I'm not so sure that overriding greed doesn't almost always wins out. Here is why; not long afterthe US Invasion of Iraq, they should a captured contract worker captured by a well known Insurgent and a few days later, another internet Video appeared with this Insurgent putting a Sword to his Neck and actually beheading him with the head falling on the floor and looking up at his bleeding neck& headless body. He was still alive for a few seconds before the lights went dark. A Horrible death. Did this stop other Contract workers from KBR, Blackwater coming to Iraq? Not at all, even had a group that came from Col to work for Blackwater a couple years later. They(colombians) were denied the contracted wages after they arrived in Iraq. In most cases, the Almighty dollar wins out and all caution and common sense is thrown to the wind,,,

My Avatar-- Sarah Palin Says " "You know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?? Lipstick!" Now on a Short Verbal Tether by the Honorable John McCain

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Jun 3, 2008, 23:57:

that was a nice 'segway' by Sam Salmon and Webmanco.
good 'tag-teamin'.... twisting the term 'contractor/mercenary'

Where do we go from here?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 4, 2008, 07:53:

Contractors profit from war which I believe is wrong. I believe they don't have to be combatants to be con considered mercenaries as they are still profiting from an activity that can (and should) be carried out by the armed forces (legit forces).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 4, 2008, 08:21:

I feel bad because I know there are people that just want to make an honest living and the government has 'legitimized' this so they can hardly be blamed. My blame lies more directly at the government because these flood gates should not have been open at all, in my opinion. These same people could be employed by the government doing the same thing, I believe there is a limit to outsourcing and off-shoring... in my eyes war most certainly crosses the line.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 4, 2008, 08:36:

Well and that's what I disagree with... This model may be valid for a business (and some government provided services). However, I find it unethical to run the military as a business just because you are dealing directly with people's lives. More so, it's not just the lives of people from your country but also the lives of people elsewhere. (This applies to health care as well)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 4, 2008, 08:37:

I know it's out there... I know it's big... I in fact fear how big it is. This doesn't make it right. And the bottom line is accountability.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 4, 2008, 08:50:

Surely I would like to hear some answers as well... but I'm afraid it's the interests groups that have moved this process.

I found the following article to be quite good, but believe me there's tons written on this both in news media and academic publications.

"private contractors are sometimes more capable of providing efficient, customized solutions"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 4, 2008, 09:27:

This is actually a topic that I would like to sit down and write about with some time because the historical and modern contexts are definitely interesting.... maybe later this summer if I can figure out a more specific area of interest that perhaps hasn't been written about.

"Machiavelli takes a strong stance against the use of mercenary forces, troops that are hired to fight for a wage. He believes mercenary forces are useless to a ruler because they are undisciplined, cowardly, and without any loyalty. Their only motivation to fight is for money. Machiavelli attributes the Italian city states' weakness to the reliance on mercenary armies."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on Jun 4, 2008, 10:11:

Legalize the drugs and it ALL becomes a moot point.

t

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.