I would have had a go.

Roger that.

I see your Training doesn't say that when initially confronted by a Group of Armed Merc's in a Combat Zone that you are to turn over your Weapons and Lay on the Ground.

Yeah the way I see it, was that the troops being well versed in the ROE were not willing to shoot fellow American citizens just to make a point, righteous though it may have been. That's the difference between the Army, Marines, USAAF etc., and Mercenaries and that is why there is no place for them on a battlefield.

Don't ever get between them and their paychecks.

Originally Posted by Gator

I can't believe that a United States Military Force surrendered to a group of Merc's in Iraq without firing a shot.

I hear ya, but they were OUR mercs. The US Soldiers knew it'd work itself out without anyone needing to get killed.

Absolutely. And without getting involved I would just like to make one point. These mercs would be mostly vets, and likely to be very professional indeed. Isn't it better to let them help take the strain if it lightens the load on young fresh soldiers perhaps new to the war environment, particularly if one was considering conscription at, say, eighteen years of age. The latter was my experience, eighteen and on active service after 3 months training. That was OK, but it was helpful to have guys of experience amongst us, from campaigns such as Arnheim, Kenya, Korea,Malaysia. I guess that today, many more of these would have been attracted to the mercs. I bear in mind too the Foreign Legion, and of course the Roman legions, who were the most lethal, disciplined, hard-nosed, disinterested (politically), professional fighting killing machines. Loyalty unquestioned.

And yet, the United States Military did it all in World War II, without Merc's.
The Troops were young and green for the most part, and yet, in less time than the United States Military has been tied up in Afghanistan, and Iraq, the United States Military won a Major War in 2 separate Theaters, although, Special Weapons were employed in the Pacific Theater to bring about the end in a more timely manner.

And just because someone is an American, or an American and a Military Veteran does not mean that what they are doing is legal, or that they do not need put in their place, perhaps, depending on the circumstances, even put in the ground.

Gator, I know you won't see this because you have me on ignore, but here goes. Comparing WWII to Iraq is like celebrating a victory because neither team showed up and it was declared a draw. In WWII the entire nation was mobilized and everything was geared up for war, in Iraq the only industry that has made any changes to help the war is the munitions factories, which is why the price of ammunition has been going up, the factories are putting out more and more ammo for the military and sport ammo has suffered the consequences. 97.4% of Americans are not doing a thing to support the war by material means. We have roughly 400,000 of 1.8 million troops committed to the war effort (includes members stateside who are in logistics) right now, in WWII we had 16 million out of 16 million troops committed to the war effort in some way, shape or form. I don't see that changing in the coming months or years either, they aren't called the Greatest Generation because they let a very small few do all the work, everyone pitched in and made the effort.

Originally Posted by Gator

And yet, the United States Military did it all in World War II, without Merc's.
The Troops were young and green for the most part, and yet, in less time than the United States Military has been tied up in Afghanistan, and Iraq, the United States Military won a Major War in 2 separate Theaters, although, Special Weapons were employed in the Pacific Theater to bring about the end in a more timely manner.

And just because someone is an American, or an American and a Military Veteran does not mean that what they are doing is legal, or that they do not need put in their place, perhaps, depending on the circumstances, even put in the ground.

Apples and oranges.

In WWII the US military had far more men in uniform and an unending body from which to draw more if they needed it- the draft. We don't have the manpower to do it without contractors because of DOD cuts that happened more than a decade ago.

And right now, according to the laws on the books, treaties the US is party to, contracts with legal bodies and agreements with foreign countries, what these contractors are doing IS :CEN:ing LEGAL no matter how you or I or anyone else feel about it.

Originally Posted by Gator

I can't believe that a United States Military Force surrendered to a group of Merc's in Iraq without firing a shot.

Thats because the Military has ROE'S and a violation of said ROE's in country ends up with the unit and it's commanders having a microscope shoved up their collective 4th POC. By your friendly neighborhood CID/NCIS etc etc. The military is held to a higher standard than these PMC "Shooters" and not adhering to that standard ends careers.

They did'nt light em up because they knew who they were and judgement was the better part of valor in this case.

I wouldn't have gone so far to surrender to them though.
I mean, what are THEY gonna do? Shoot American troops? Hell, that would have Blackwater disbanded and jailed in no time. And you'll have a bunch of dudes lining up for cosmetic tattoo removal surgery.