hey,
are they somehow connected to
Halliburton,
or KBR: kellog, brown, an root?

if they are, here is a website for you, its called "halliburtonwatch.org".
here it is:http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Use of them must be OUTLAWED, you say?

SURE, definitely, but while speaking of making crimes and criminals really, truly illegal, instead of only on paper, we'd be better off by FIRST making sure to truly make it illegal, criminal, and really punished, to commit WARS OF AGGRESSION. I'm sure that Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Africans, and many other people would agree.

And while speaking of private "security", really mercenary, companies, corporations, "businesses", enterprises, ..., these operators of either evidently or apparently extreme insanity and arrogant-as-hell ignorance, WELL, while on the subject of them we should have noticed something by now. One way to address that is by first asking the question of, "Why is Blackwater the only private "security" company we read and hear about; wouldn't there also be others, including possibly much worse others?", f.e.

One way to answer that question is to begin by reading the following two articles, f.e.

1) The article by Prof. Peter Dale Scott linked in my first post in this CD page; and,

2) "The Really Bad Dogs of War",

by Srdja Trifkovic, chroniclesmagazine.org, Oct 11 2007
.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7052

I'll quote the first paragraph in Trifkovic's article:

"Focusing on Blackwater while neglecting MPRI is like investigating Ivan Demjanjuk for years on end, but allowing Adolf Eichmann to live peacefully in Buenos Aires".

He goes on to provide a very serious explanation, expose. It's not long at all and is definitely [important]; assuming what he describes is indeed true and it likely is.

Prof. Scott's article is not only about private "security" cies. It's importantly about those, as well as private "intelligence" cies, which are bad and which sometimes also include the "security" operations part of the overall private profiteering cies in or of wars ... of [aggression], the only kind the U.S. conducts. If it's the only kind the U.S. conducts, and it is, then it's evidently the only kind that NATO conducts or participate in, also.

But Prof. Scott's article is also about more important information aside from what his piece tells readers about the private "security" and "intelligence" cies.

BIG OIL, U.S. and U.K., definitely are major players in the present GWoT wars, both of them; both, given the one in Pakistan, today, is an extension of the one in and on Afghanistan, instead of being an apparently separate war, as the war on Iraq [appears] to be.

Other powerful players are on the local level and definitely include the international drug traffickers, like the drug and war lords of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the pals of the U.S. and NATO, which'll allow these drug producers and traffickers to majorly profit in order to maintain their alliance or "loyalty".

Prof. Scott credibly says that these powerful players are more powerful than all of the governments involved in these wars.

On the topic of "full spectrum dominance", or global dominance, prof. Scott credibly explains that the U.S. and its elite rulers aren't aiming to achieve global dominance in terms of conquering Central Asia, saying they know that they can't achieve that. Instead, they want to establish a strategically powerful military basing in Central Asia and make and keep it much more destablised. By doing this, and it's something they evidently can do, they will still be able to gain control or much more control over the international OIL market, or oil and natural gas markets (am not sure if Prof. Scott mentions natural gas, not recalling if he does, or not).

I've often enough posted at CD that the U.S. elites are seeking to achieve "full spectrum dominance", globally, and still believe that they are. It's just that they are not seeking to achieve this with outright conquest. They will establish as much global dominance as they can, but through destabilisation, only. Major, murderous, ... destabilisation! If they succeed and it's looking like they possibly may, then they'll still have much more dominance than they've had, so far, or in the past.

It'll be "full spectrum" or global dominance "Lite"; for "version". Only, this "Lite" version is not like with freeware versions of software, for they're free to download, share, and use. This is going to be global dominance "lite" at extremely high cost[s].

Both are important and very well written articles.

And I'll repeat, the other articles and videos linked in my first post in this CD page are all important. They definitely help to complete the whole picture of what's really going on.

NOTE: The video at Dem. Now! linked in my first post and for the interview with Jeff Sharlet very importantly educates viewers, listeners to the now evident fact that the right-wing Zionist "Christians" of the U.S. are not the most powerfully influential right-wing Christians in the U.S., while those who do form this faction include members of both main U.S. political parties, Repub. and Dem.; including HILLARY CLINTON and some others of Congress and/or the Senate shown in the video, so besides others who aren't shown in the interview.

UNLIKE Erik Prince and some other heads of Blackwater USA, i.e., Xe, who want to murder, massacre, wipe out all Muslims where BW is allowed to operate, the right-wing "Christian" group or organisation known as 'The Family' that Jeff Sharlet very well investigated, including from the inside, and has been exposing since March 2003 with his Harpers Mag. piece of that month, an extensive piece linked in the Dem. Now! page linked to in my first post in this CD page; well, the latter organisation does NOT want to kill Muslims or Jews or any "Christians" who aren't like them. Instead, they just want to "gentlemanly" establish dominance, geopolitically and economically, very much for OIL, too.

They're more powerfully influential than BW is.

I don't think it's your intention, but you sound as if you're not against these CRIMINAL wars; only being disgruntled about the way they're conducted, sounding like another John Kerry, Sen. Is that your intent? I don't think so, but your post does have this sort of implication; an unintended implication, if it is really unintended.

For wars that must be fought due to truly being for [defence], then I would agree with you. Problem: The U.S. hasn't been attacked by any other government or state, and wars on states because of some actors located in the states is definitely and extremely CRIMINAL, as well as hegemonious, etcetera.

And before they employed private "security" contractors, however, we might consider the history of the use of covert CIA ops in Southeast Asia, Latin or Central America, and even in Europe (Op. Gladio, f.e.).

Is that better than using private "security" cies? I don't think so. Both are EVIL ... as [hell].

Most of the hired security in Iraq and I am sure it is the same for Afghanistan (I have not been to Afghanistan yet) that the military hires is for Force Protection. Force Protection is the guarding of military bases. In Iraq, private security hired by the military are not permitted to leave the bases so they do not have any interaction with Local Nationals. Companies like Aegis, Black Water, Triple Canopy are hired by other government agencies. At my base here in Iraq, most of our hired security are from Kenya and Uganda. They are great partners to work with and allows US personnel to do their mission without having to guard entry points, towers, dining facilities, and so on. Though they do not make a lot of money as compared to United States standards, as compared to their home country, their wages here are above and beyond what they would be making at home ($800 a month).

I also stated the same thing during the 2008 campaigns, but didn't say Obama would start a new war in Afghanistan, which he hasn't done. He's only continuing and escalating the war that the Bush Jr administration started there and which had been in the planning stage for years before Sept. 2001, or even before 2001 altogether. The Obama administration may be doing some new things in their continuing of this war, and they may be using new ways of speaking about it, but they haven't started a new war there.

Many or most of the Obama supporters during his 2008 campaign continuously refused to provide any credible reasons to illustrate that it was a sound choice to support him. Some used the very phony anti-war position of Obama in 2002 without ever having quoted what he then said, and without providing any links to resources quoting what he had said. He did not then speak in truly anti-war terms, as quotes of his then words clearly illustrate. I don't have the link handy, but have come across explanations of what his so-called 2002 anti-war words really consisted of, including some quotes, and I could also see from those words that his anti-war statements were NOT worthy of any merit from sharp-minded voters. Other people claimed he was the lesser of two evils, but never provided any proof that he was really lesser. They, like the others, only provided [empty] claims.

Some, if not many, of those people have somewhat "converted" to accepting reality for what it really is and what we could see that it was during and before Obama's 2008 campaigns for the presidency. But I wonder if these people wouldn't again make the same gaff as before. It's too likely that they would or will, [again].

They LIED by omission in refusing to recognise and publicly ack. Obama's rather very criminal years as a Senator, and once people adopt lying this badly, it's probably difficult to break the habit.

I don't have much trust in people who make LYING a way of life.

I've read that before, however was it only due to the use of mercenaries, mercenary "soldiers", or would the Roman Empire's long campaign of wars of aggression on other peoples have been the greater cause of the empire's eventual downfall? I would imagine that the downfall would happen even if mercenaries weren't used when a country continuously commits extreme, murderous, ... wars of aggression.

Not using mercenaries wouldn't have made the present GWoT wars any more right and legal, non-criminal than they are (not).

The U.S. military has killed many more Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis than the mercenaries employed by the U.S. have.

Which destroyed 70% or more of Fallujah in Iraq, the mercenaries, or the U.S. military? The latter. Which massively bombed other towns, ... in Iraq, and massively bomb in Afghanistan, the mercenaries, or the U.S. military? The latter. Which has used huge amounts of depleted uranium in these and prior wars, the mercenaries, or the U.S. military, as well as the British military? The latter two.

As stated in one of my posts in response to the post by JerryM, even if the U.S. began employing private "security", mercenary, cies since the Vietnam War, and that's only if it's true that the U.S. didn't employ these goons earlier, which it actually did, such as when the U.S. President called for bounty hunting against American Indians, offering $5 and $10 per scalp as proof of killed, murdered American Indians, and these bounty hunters weren't U.S. military; well, anyway, as stated in one of my posts in response to JerryM's, the CIA covert operations like in Southeast Asia, auch as with Op. Phoenix, certainly haven't been better than the use of private mercenary cies. They're both extremely criminal murderers.

The U.S., all governments, should cease using private mercenary cies or simply private mercenaries, but not using them evidently wouldn't improve reality by much.