Feds target Blackwater in weapons probe (AP)
Tsunami
Active member
Simple question -
Can anybody name a recent news story that has come from this region of the world that was later shown to be false?
If your unable - then you need to spend some time away from the forums and a little more time on a local news crawler like myway news.
===
I don't follow the logic that;
Blackwater = mercenary = scum = kill w/out remorse.
I can't even see a liberal making such a huge leap in logic, well - maybe not a liberal who is also a vet.
The point is, you need to look into Blackwater's highering process before you make such accusations. These men are vetted beyond what is required for basic entry into the military. While I do not know the exact figure - I would be willing to bet my mortgage after looking at their site that over 90% are prior special ops. These men understand honor, courage, sacrafice ad duty - they paid their dues and are now plying their trade.
===
One last point that needs to be made is that they are not being paid to KILL, again - $ does not = KILL woman & children.
To make it more simpler, $ = protection. They are paid to protect, and they do this job well. Not one of their assets has been killed, they are that GOOD.
:drill:
Can anybody name a recent news story that has come from this region of the world that was later shown to be false?
If your unable - then you need to spend some time away from the forums and a little more time on a local news crawler like myway news.
===
I don't follow the logic that;
Blackwater = mercenary = scum = kill w/out remorse.
I can't even see a liberal making such a huge leap in logic, well - maybe not a liberal who is also a vet.
The point is, you need to look into Blackwater's highering process before you make such accusations. These men are vetted beyond what is required for basic entry into the military. While I do not know the exact figure - I would be willing to bet my mortgage after looking at their site that over 90% are prior special ops. These men understand honor, courage, sacrafice ad duty - they paid their dues and are now plying their trade.
===
One last point that needs to be made is that they are not being paid to KILL, again - $ does not = KILL woman & children.
To make it more simpler, $ = protection. They are paid to protect, and they do this job well. Not one of their assets has been killed, they are that GOOD.
:drill:
senojekips
Active member
This is often the case in our own countries and is no "proof" that all of the news is wrong.
No one has vaguely suggested that. The main debate revolves around the point that they are mercenaries* and the necessity for mercenaries in a war being prosecuted by a coalition that is trying to project to the world that we are fighting for a legitimate cause, in the manner of a civilised country, and that we have well thought ROEs in place.
The fact that we have group of persons are being used to circumvent the ROEs, does not impress the rest of the world and reduces our credibility to that not much above those we are trying to displace.
*They fulfil all of the criteria as defined in any dictionary you may like to chose.
The fact that their selection criteria are higher than the military is a complete red herring. That would be like the insurgency using the argument that the explosives they use in their IEDs are of a higher quality that those used by us. Their alleged "quality" or lack of it, is not the point, it is the fact that they are used at all.
Well why are they armed?.... Off course they are paid to kill, your over simplification of this matter hides a lot of truth. A firearm is only a deterrent if you display the fact that you are willing to use it, not to merely shoot in the air, but to kill. This is done on a regular basis.
Unfortunately this has been shown not to be the case, and for some odd reason too many people seem to write it off, merely because it happens in a war zone. Had the Iraqi government not protested this would have just been swept under the carpet as another case of "collateral damage"
The fact is that mercenaries are not constrained by the ROEs put in place for the legitimate armed forces. This in itself makes them little more than criminals. (By Australian law they are)
If it was as simple as you say, all of this could be solved merely by throwing money at it
Using that argument it could be legitimately stated that Al Capone's job was to make people happy, he was merely providing for a popular demand. He was certainly good at what he did and like the mercenaries he made a lot of money doing it, because there was a great demand for his services.
If mercenaries are the answer, why is it that security in US embassies around the world is provided by US Marines?
Last edited:
Tsunami
Active member
In blue - nice, although I must admit I had to take a break after reading, I was starting to see yellow and blue spots similar to being the recipient of an agressive camera flash! :mrgreen:
-
I am not sure what was meant by your response to the validity of the press? If your stating that you stand behind the story as being true - all I can respond w/ is we have to leave that at we agree to disagree. I say that because I can guarantee there is more to it than what has been reported.
Blackwater has a strict policy about not talking w/ the press - its only hurting their cause at this point. I tend to wait to hear the other side before I lay judgement.
-
Concerning the Iraqi government calling for Blackwater's exodus, what's new- how many times have they for the US military to leave in the last month alone?
-
Concerning protection of embassies - yes that is tasked to the Marines.
Concerning personal protection of higher end diplomats and DOD personel - its has in times of peace been tasked to SOCOM.
Since SOCOM currently has been tasked w/ more important duties - the question needs to be asked, who fills in? Wouldn't you prefer a former Navy SEAL (which Blackwater prefers - see owner & CEO) or Special Forces trained personel?
-
Guns = kiling, again - not following your logic. I guess I liken that logic to Cheech & Chong; "Guns don't kill people, Cops kill people."
Come on - your running a protection detail, your adversary shows up w/ an AK-47 and what, you expect your ment to carry a knife? Whats that saying? Don't bring a knife to a gun fight?
-
Finally - how many assets has Blackwater lost to Iraqi insurgents?
Scoreboard.
:jump:
-
I am not sure what was meant by your response to the validity of the press? If your stating that you stand behind the story as being true - all I can respond w/ is we have to leave that at we agree to disagree. I say that because I can guarantee there is more to it than what has been reported.
Blackwater has a strict policy about not talking w/ the press - its only hurting their cause at this point. I tend to wait to hear the other side before I lay judgement.
-
Concerning the Iraqi government calling for Blackwater's exodus, what's new- how many times have they for the US military to leave in the last month alone?
-
Concerning protection of embassies - yes that is tasked to the Marines.
Concerning personal protection of higher end diplomats and DOD personel - its has in times of peace been tasked to SOCOM.
Since SOCOM currently has been tasked w/ more important duties - the question needs to be asked, who fills in? Wouldn't you prefer a former Navy SEAL (which Blackwater prefers - see owner & CEO) or Special Forces trained personel?
-
Guns = kiling, again - not following your logic. I guess I liken that logic to Cheech & Chong; "Guns don't kill people, Cops kill people."
Come on - your running a protection detail, your adversary shows up w/ an AK-47 and what, you expect your ment to carry a knife? Whats that saying? Don't bring a knife to a gun fight?
-
Finally - how many assets has Blackwater lost to Iraqi insurgents?
Scoreboard.
:jump:
senojekips
Active member
Your screen brilliance must be too high, or my blind old eyes just cant see it, which is distinctly possible. I merely highlighted my answers to make them clearly visible, I'll try something less dazzling.
You seemed to make the point that the press is not to be believed, and I answered, implying to the effect that although they are not the most reliable of sources, they get it right most of the time, especially if you only rely on sources as AAP or Reuters.
Well,.... if Blackwater chose to operate in a grey area and then play "secret squirrel" with the truth, the public can't be blamed for assuming that all is not well and that there is a probable cover up going on. So far this has proven to be correct.
-
If this is the government that we oversaw the installation of, I guess we have some obligation to listen to them. After all it was us who wanted democratic processes to be installed in this country, now it has turned to bite us on the bum we cannot fairly grizzle about it. Yeah, I think we got ahead of ourselves, but the damage is done.
-
I don't wish to be accused of putting words in your mouth, but what you have said here looks to me to say that, "We have over extended our resources, therefore we must break the accepted laws of warfare to get out of the mess we have created." Whether the mercenaries come from the SEALS, Special Forces or the corner shop is completely immaterial.
-
You made what I considered a completely unrealistic statement, that they were not there to kill. If they are not there to kill, why are they armed? So that they can kill anyone they see as a threat. Otherwise they would not be there.
It's just a matter of statistics, given enough time and a little effort, one day an IED will take out "them" and their "asset", and all of their training will not be able to overcome the forces of chemistry. When well placed, NH4NO3→N2 + 2H2O + 1/2O2 + 27.72 Kg/cal makes no distinction as to whether the target is a mercenary or a regular soldier, they will all live or die according to the vagaries of chance.
Last edited:
