Blackwater

[tvashtarkatena]

No, I just want to know when you back up your bullshit with service. You're exactly right - it is a volunteer army - the only question is why haven't you and Fairweather volunteered...?

 

I would never risk my life to preserve the freedoms of an ungrateful, anti-american a-hole like you.

 

As they used to say in the military (not that you'd know, of course): excuses are like assholes. Actions, or the lack thereof, are what makes the man.

[tvashtarkatena]

So does anyone here think that Blackwater is being made a sacrificial lamb of sorts?

 

 

 

No, I don't agree. The reporting I've read indicates that Blackwater has behaved badly; noticeably worse than it's competitors in the same industry. Perhaps it's part of their corporate culture. In any case, the evidence so far indicates that Blackwater's actions are ripe for scrutiny and reform. There is a larger question of the accountability of these private security firms, but it usually takes an incident like the recent civilian shootings in Iraq to bring the issue to the attention of the public and congress.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

No, actually, I spent 6 on, 6 off, 24x7 in a 5" 38 gunmount on a cruiser from 300yds to 2 miles off the North Vietnamese coast for just under a year, daily firing what came to be a bit shy of 400k rounds including the only attack on Haiphong harbor during the war. All this at a time when old 5" mounts were going-off self-destructing like so much popcorn. When I wasn't in the mount I was on Marine helicopters over NV looking for SAM sites for the night's mission.

 

You've got a short memory. I was jabbing you with a barb that someone else used a few months back. Keep up the bragging, btw, it's real impressive.

 

 

Try again, and exactly why don't you support this war or our troops with your service and life?

 

I told you already: with all the fuckhead assholes who bad mouth this country and our involvement in this conflict (and others), hate on American and everything it stands for, mock the sacrifices made by our soldiers, etc., I honestly don't see how anyone can serve. Personally, I'd rather see you all get fucked over by terrorists and rot in the aftermath, then lift a finger on your behalf. Must I repeat again?

 

 

[murraysovereign]

"yea - the training is expensive, and the US taxpayer has paid it! BW are all ex-military, all trained at US expense, but BW reaps the profit. Another excellent example of the efficiency of the marketplace."

 

As others have pointed out, this is hardly confined to the likes of Seals, SF, etc - or the millitary for that matter. Doctors, nurses, any graduate of a state college, anyone who has attended a public school, and so on.

 

 

There does seem to be something different about Blackwater though. This is a company that gets paid by the US government to train people to do a job that the US government, by it's own statements, does not perform. It's a job, in fact, that the US government pays the private company to perform. So the government pays a private company to train personnel so they can work for the private company fulfilling contracts for the government. There's a peculiar closed-loop aspect to this thing that just looks... bad. Blackwater has hooked onto a perpetual-motion gravy train, and the US taxpayer is funding it.

[Off_White]

I told you already: with all the fuckhead assholes who bad mouth this country and our involvement in this conflict (and others), hate on American and everything it stands for, mock the sacrifices made by our soldiers, etc., I honestly don't see how anyone can serve. Personally, I'd rather see you all get fucked over by terrorists and rot in the aftermath, then lift a finger on your behalf. Must I repeat again?

 

Why do you hate America? I think this must be the most pathetic post in this entire thread.

[Serenity]

Murray,

 

That is an inaccurate statement.

 

So many of these posts sound so ignorant to someone who actually knows and understands what is going on, so I'll explain a few things, AGAIN.

 

Blackwater is contracted to TEMPORARILY provide security for Department of State. High threat environments require a unique set of skills. Basically deputizing former military personnel is cost effective, and once again I will mention that no diplomat has been killed while being protected by Blackwater.

 

Blackwater does not train people with the sole purpose of providing them employment funded by the taxpayer. They perform training roles requested by government officials, oversight is provided by government officials, mission sets and ROE's are dictated by government officials with high rankings.

 

If you are paying attention Eric Prince went before a congressional committee yesterday and represented admirably. It's the Federal Law Enforcement Officials IN CHARGE of Blackwater who are in the target sights right now.

 

Bottom line is Blackwater has done a fantastic job at the task they have been assigned. Has it been a perfect run? No, not really, but it's improving all the time. Professionalismship, teamanship...

 

[Off_White]

Professionalismship, teamanship...

 

If that's not a GW Bush quote, it's a pretty good parody.

[JayB]

... but you seem to be consistently - I'll go ahead and say it - anti American. Could have something to do with your "affiliations"?

 

So, how old are you Fairweather (KKK and a few others)? 42 or under? If so, exactly why aren't you serving in Iraq? If you're older, and have kids, have you or are you going to encourage them to enlist if the are of age or as soon as they come of age? Again, you folks talk a lot of shit, but when and where do you back it up with your life and that of your family?

 

So - when there's a megaslaughter occuring somewhere in the world that could be averted or constrained through the use of force, as in Rwanda, the Balkans, or Darfur - I take it that you recuse yourself from the conversation since you won't personally be there manning the lines? How about when discussing humanitarian relief in the wake of the Tsunami? If you aren't going to be there putting your hands to work, then you aren't qualified to persist in the conversation?

 

As far as this chickenhawk business goes - the only people who *are* qualified to take that particular line are people who volunteered at a time when war was either imminent or ongoing. Fighting because you were drafted doesn't negate your service or heroism, but it does limit the extent to which you can bait people who - like you - did not volunteer to do so.

 

As for the non-veterans who are playing the chickenhawk card, what acts of voluntary sacrifice and sustained valor have you engaged in that qualify you to question anyone else's bravery, exactly? I may not agree with the argument that if you are not personally exposed to the risks inherent in a particular action - whether it be apprehending criminals, fighting fires, rescuing stranded climbers, etc - then you have not business commenting on it, but I can at least understand where the sentiment comes from when the people who *have* borne the risks associated with that particular activity are doing the talking.

 

What I can't fathom is someone who hasn't been there on whatever front line we are talking about being shameless enough to appropriate someone else's risk, valor, bravery, and peril and pretend as if it were their own in an effort to bait people who their *own* character and deeds give them no basis whatsoever to critique, much less talk shit to.

 

 

[JayB]

"yea - the training is expensive, and the US taxpayer has paid it! BW are all ex-military, all trained at US expense, but BW reaps the profit. Another excellent example of the efficiency of the marketplace."

 

As others have pointed out, this is hardly confined to the likes of Seals, SF, etc - or the millitary for that matter. Doctors, nurses, any graduate of a state college, anyone who has attended a public school, and so on.

 

 

There does seem to be something different about Blackwater though. This is a company that gets paid by the US government to train people to do a job that the US government, by it's own statements, does not perform. It's a job, in fact, that the US government pays the private company to perform. So the government pays a private company to train personnel so they can work for the private company fulfilling contracts for the government. There's a peculiar closed-loop aspect to this thing that just looks... bad. Blackwater has hooked onto a perpetual-motion gravy train, and the US taxpayer is funding it.

 

I have some serious reservations about this model as well, but if the conversation is limited to which is more expensive in a narrow, accounting sense, then I don't think that the argument that paying former SF/Seals/Delta guys to do the job at some multiple of what their active duty counterparts make is less expensive can necessarily one that can be dismissed out of hand when you look at all of the costs associated with creating one of their equivalents inside the millitary.

[mattp]

Good point there, Jay: American foreign policy is of direct interest to all of us and we have a right and responsibility to talk about it whether we intend to serve or not. However, the chicken-hawks invite this criticism because they so frequently proclaim that those who disagree with this war are “cowardly.”

 

In the face of shrill proclamations of superiority in their patriotism from Fairweather or KK or anybody else, Joseph does in my opinon have a right to ask: "what have YOU done for your country?"

 

As I noted elsewhere in the past few days, those who support this war have argued for six years that we who criticize it are out of line for even saying so. That stance particularly makes the challenges like that from Joseph totally appropriate.

[JayB]

For me it's not what you believe that matters as much as why you believe it, and with regards to the stance you take or the criticisms that you level at a particular action or administration that matters as much as what your motives are for doing so.

 

Some more thoughts on Patriotism, by the man responsible for the "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." line. If you read the entire essay, I don't think that you can argue that his point was that anyone who claims to be motivated by patriotism is by definition a scoundrel, which is what those who often quote this line from Johnson seem to think.

 

You can read it all here:

 

http://www.samueljohnson.com/thepatriot.html

 

Or not. Here's some excerpts, some of which you may agree with, some of which you may not. I think it's one of the better essays of the subject in the English language.:

 

"Some claim a place in the list of patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting opposition to the court.

 

This mark is by no means infallible. Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love hius country. He that has been refused a reasonable, or unreasonable request, who thinks his merit underrated, and sees his influence declining, begins soon to talk of natural equality, the absurdity of "many made for one," the original compact, the foundation of authority, and the majesty of the people. As his political melancholy increases, he tells, and, perhaps, dreams, of the advances of the prerogative, and the dangers of arbitrary power; yet his design, in all his declamation, is not to benefit his country, but to gratify his malice."

 

"A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation.

 

This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion.

 

The fallaciousness of this note of patriotism is particularly apparent, when the clamour continues after the evil is past."

 

"As war is one of the heaviest of national evils, a calamity in which every species of misery is involved; as it sets the general safety to hazard, suspends commerce, and desolates the country; as it exposes great numbers to hardships, dangers, captivity, and death; no man, who desires the publick prosperity, will inflame general resentment by aggravating minute injuries, or enforcing disputable rights of little importance.

 

It may, therefore, be safely pronounced, that those men are no patriots, who, when the national honour was vindicated in the sight of Europe, and the Spaniards having invaded what they call their own, had shrunk to a disavowal of their attempt, and a relaxation of their claim, would still have instigated us to a war, for a bleak and barren spot in the Magellanick ocean, of which no use could be made, unless it were a place of exile for the hypocrites of patriotism.

 

Yet let it not be forgotten, that, by the howling violence of patriotick rage, the nation was, for a time, exasperated to such madness, that, for a barren rock under a stormy sky, we might have now been fighting and dying, had not our competitors been wiser than ourselves; and those who are now courting the favour of the people, by noisy professions of publick spirit, would, while they were counting the profits of their artifice, have enjoyed the patriotick pleasure of hearing, sometimes, that thousands have been slaughtered in a battle, and, sometimes, that a navy had been dispeopled by poisoned air and corrupted food."

 

"It may be doubted, whether the name of a patriot can be fairly given, as the reward of secret satire, or open outrage. To fill the newspapers with sly hints of corruption and intrigue, to circulate the Middlesex Journal, and London Pacquet, may, indeed be zeal; but it may, likewise, be interest and malice. To offer a petition, not expected to be granted; to insult a king with a rude remonstrance, only because there is no punishment for legal insolence, is not courage, for there is no danger; nor patriotism, for it tends to the subversion of order, and lets wickedness loose upon the land, by destroying the reverence due to sovereign authority.

 

It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. But he sounds no alarm, when there is no enemy; he never terrifies his countrymen till he is terrified himself. The patriotism, therefore, may be justly doubted of him, who professes to be disturbed by incredibilities...Still less does the true patriot circulate opinions which he knows to be false."

[tvashtarkatena]

Personally, I'd rather see you all get fucked over by terrorists and rot in the aftermath, then lift a finger on your behalf. Must I repeat again?

 

 

How....admirable. I think I'll send this to your adoring wife and children.

[tvashtarkatena]

Bottom line is Blackwater has done a fantastic job at the task they have been assigned. Has it been a perfect run? No, not really, but it's improving all the time. Professionalismship, teamanship...

 

Perhaps not....

[tvashtarkatena]

Professionalismship, teamanship...

 

If that's not a GW Bush quote, it's a pretty good parody.

 

That's tea for the tillerman, and wine for the....

[cj001f]

Johnson was a prat. Boswell is where it's at

[JosephH]

... but you seem to be consistently - I'll go ahead and say it - anti American. Could have something to do with your "affiliations"?

 

So, how old are you Fairweather (KKK and a few others)? 42 or under? If so, exactly why aren't you serving in Iraq? If you're older, and have kids, have you or are you going to encourage them to enlist if the are of age or as soon as they come of age? Again, you folks talk a lot of shit, but when and where do you back it up with your life and that of your family?

 

So - when there's a megaslaughter occuring somewhere in the world that could be averted or constrained through the use of force, as in Rwanda, the Balkans, or Darfur - I take it that you recuse yourself from the conversation since you won't personally be there manning the lines? How about when discussing humanitarian relief in the wake of the Tsunami? If you aren't going to be there putting your hands to work, then you aren't qualified to persist in the conversation?

 

As far as this chickenhawk business goes - the only people who *are* qualified to take that particular line are people who volunteered at a time when war was either imminent or ongoing. Fighting because you were drafted doesn't negate your service or heroism, but it does limit the extent to which you can bait people who - like you - did not volunteer to do so.

 

As for the non-veterans who are playing the chickenhawk card, what acts of voluntary sacrifice and sustained valor have you engaged in that qualify you to question anyone else's bravery, exactly? I may not agree with the argument that if you are not personally exposed to the risks inherent in a particular action - whether it be apprehending criminals, fighting fires, rescuing stranded climbers, etc - then you have not business commenting on it, but I can at least understand where the sentiment comes from when the people who *have* borne the risks associated with that particular activity are doing the talking.

 

What I can't fathom is someone who hasn't been there on whatever front line we are talking about being shameless enough to appropriate someone else's risk, valor, bravery, and peril and pretend as if it were their own in an effort to bait people who their *own* character and deeds give them no basis whatsoever to critique, much less talk shit to.

 

The point, your assumptions and logical repartee aside, is that there is a lot of clueless, patriotic, pro-war shit-talking goes on here by folks who have no idea what they are talking about and have not - and would not - put, nor allow themselves to be put, in harms way to back up those words. It's exactly this perverse and cowardly personal hypocrisy which is the dominant theme at every turn when you peel back the cover off this administration. Be it their military, foreign or 'family values' policies - next to none of these spineless f#cks walk their talk and live the bullshit they shovel in their ruthless pursuit of power at the expense of both our Constitution and the nation's standing in the world.

 

At one time, it was pretty rare to run into this kind of posing cowardice and hypocrisy in climbing circles and I liked that about climbing. Times obviously change.

[dt_3pin]

Bottom line is Blackwater has done a fantastic job at the task they have been assigned. Has it been a perfect run? No, not really, but it's improving all the time. Professionalismship, teamanship...

 

Perhaps not....

 

Despite my concern about military contractors, nepotistic war profiteering, and the US fiasco in Iraq in general, I have a hard time with criticisms of Blackwater's actions. What happened is really fucked up and its sad that innocent people were killed. But innocent people are slaughtered every day in Iraq, whether by suicide bomb, guided bomb, or Blackwater. Who knows why the first Iraqi was shot, but I suppose I would react the same way if I saw a car hurling at my convoy. It's a pretty fucking high-threat enviornment those folks are operating in, and shit happens. It doesn't sound like they lined the Iraqis up and mowed them down, Mi Lai syle. Instead, it looks like, IMHO, they were responding to a legitimately percieved threat.

 

I'm not really willing to second guess individual troops on the ground in a combat environment. The problem isn't so much what Blackwater or US troops do in any one specific instance, on account of those are just symptoms of the bigger foreign policy blunder. These hearings seem kind of like a forest for the trees issue.

[lI1|1!]

I MAKEZ TEH LOLCAT WUT

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I told you already: with all the fuckhead assholes who bad mouth this country and our involvement in this conflict (and others), hate on American and everything it stands for, mock the sacrifices made by our soldiers, etc., I honestly don't see how anyone can serve. Personally, I'd rather see you all get fucked over by terrorists and rot in the aftermath, then lift a finger on your behalf. Must I repeat again?

 

Why do you hate America? I think this must be the most pathetic post in this entire thread.

 

I have nothing in common with about 30-40% of my fellow Americans. You can thank all the political rancor and bickering of the last 25 years for that. Hate America? That's rich. It's the other way around - I react against those who hate America, and I'm perfectly happy to let those folks twist in the wind. I have no desire to do anything for them and certainly don't need to answer to THEM for anything.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As I noted elsewhere in the past few days, those who support this war have argued for six years that we who criticize it are out of line for even saying so.

 

You don't criticize the war you want us to LOSE, and always have. Because losing means YOUR side (politically) wins. THAT is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American.

 

I would like us out of Iraq. But not if it means Iran gets to move in and the country fall into a civil war. Tell me a solution for getting us OUT without that type of aftermath and I'm all ears.

[dt_3pin]

I would like us out of Iraq. But not if it means Iran gets to move in and the country fall into a civil war. Tell me a solution for getting us OUT without that type of aftermath and I'm all ears.

 

This post hits the nail on the head, kind of. It's easy to criticize without offering pragmatic solutions, and I haven't heard any good proposals from the Left on how to withdraw without conflagrating the chaos that is contemporary Iraq. On the otherhand, the Right has left me unconvinced that the current approach will result in a favorable outcome and avoid the worst-case results KK identifies above. As I see it, the lack of good options from either side of the debate brings one word to mind - quagmire.

[joblo7]

"Churches, orders, theologies, philosophies have failed to save mankind because they have busied themselves with intellectual creeds, dogmas, rights and institutions, with acara, suddhi and darsana, as if these could save mankind, and have neglected the one thing needful, the power and purification of the soul." sri auribindo

 

the world is in the state its in because we are governed by traders.oil. banks.diamonds. gold ....we follow the un-evolved .suffering is assured.

[JosephH]

No, actually, I spent 6 on, 6 off, 24x7 in a 5" 38 gunmount on a cruiser from 300yds to 2 miles off the North Vietnamese coast for just under a year, daily firing what came to be a bit shy of 400k rounds including the only attack on Haiphong harbor during the war. All this at a time when old 5" mounts were going-off self-destructing like so much popcorn. When I wasn't in the mount I was on Marine helicopters over NV looking for SAM sites for the night's mission.

 

You've got a short memory. I was jabbing you with a barb that someone else used a few months back. Keep up the bragging, btw, it's real impressive.

 

I could certainly be mistaken, but we and the B-52 crews were the only 'frontline' operating broadly and consistently in, around, and over NV. We logged enough hours over NV skimming treetops and dodging groundfire on SAM recon flights, absorbing AK/120 fire during shore raids, and three Soviet torpedo boats in Haiphong as to not take such barbs quietly - particularly when reanimated by a hypocrite like you.

 

And as a kid who grew up in the woods hunting, I'd have traded my place in that helo and derelict 5" gunmount with anyone on the ground in a heartbeat. Clearly my mistake, following the family Naval tradition was definitely the wrong call at the time.

[dt_3pin]

"Churches, orders, theologies, philosophies have failed to save mankind because they have busied themselves with intellectual creeds, dogmas, rights and institutions, with acara, suddhi and darsana, as if these could save mankind, and have neglected the one thing needful, the power and purification of the soul." sri auribindo

 

the world is in the state its in because we are governed by traders.oil. banks.diamonds. gold ....we follow the un-evolved .suffering is assured.

 

Christ, if Neo from the Matrix and Yoda somehow spawned a retarded love child, I suspect it would sound a lot like V7.

[joblo7]

I would like us out of Iraq. But not if it means Iran gets to move in and the country fall into a civil war. Tell me a solution for getting us OUT without that type of aftermath and I'm all ears.

 

This post hits the nail on the head, kind of. It's easy to criticize without offering pragmatic solutions, and I haven't heard any good proposals from the Left on how to withdraw without conflagrating the chaos that is contemporary Iraq. On the otherhand, the Right has left me unconvinced that the current approach will result in a favorable outcome and avoid the worst-case results KK identifies above. As I see it, the lack of good options from either side of the debate brings one word to mind - quagmire.

 

that kind of resonning entails the belief that we have enemies everywhere .it is fed to you by 'your' media, to shape your opinion . so you back war and conquest.