NationStates Jolt Archive

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. State Department's renewal of Blackwater's contract to provide security in Iraq "is bad news," an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.blackwater/index.html

This being the same Blackwater the Amazingly Soverign and Independent Iraqi Goverment 'threw out' and wanted gone.

I love how we keep saying the Iraq government is its own elected government and talk about how its now capable of functioning on its own, and we are not an occupying force but instead just there to help out, and then when their "sovergein government" tells us something, we basically tell them to bugger off.

I suspect that Blackwater is owned and operated by a bald man in oddly conservative clothing stroking a white kitty. *nod*

Well, of course. Blackwater isn't finished getting all the money and loot Dick Cheney promised them yet, so their contract has to be renewed. Duh.

Hardly surprising: imagine the precedent that would be set if the Bush administration was to start bringing those responsible for war-crimes to account. ;):p

A shame, really. The least they could have done was wait until Blackwater was officially cleared of the charges before letting them go back.

I suspect that Blackwater is owned and operated by a bald man in oddly conservative clothing stroking a white kitty. *nod*

No, but maybe him and Cheney are mates....

Your first day on the job might go something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afttcxd6law

((It's a somewhat long vid))

It'd be nice if the US would at least hire competent, professional mercenaries. But I guess those'd cost more.

Despite the obvious propaganda campaign against them by The Nation and other leftist publications, I don't understand how anyone that wasn't a terrorist sympathizer like them would want Blackwater to be removed as a hired security force.

Despite the obvious propaganda campaign against them by The Nation and other leftist publications, I don't understand how anyone that wasn't a terrorist sympathizer like them would want Blackwater to be removed as a hired security force.You're setting yourself up for a damn good joke there.

Despite the obvious propaganda campaign against them by The Nation and other leftist publications, I don't understand how anyone that wasn't a terrorist sympathizer like them would want Blackwater to be removed as a hired security force.

Few reasons really.

They are incompetent and kill innocent civillians. If you have evidence to the contray, post it, but I wont expect miracles from you.

The Iraqi government has kicked them out of their country. If we really are anything but an occupying force, we should respect the wishes of the lawfully elected government of a sovergein nation that we claim to have instituted.

By killing innocent people, they have continued to stain our reputation there, thus making it harder to accomplish our mission by causing the people there to detest us and view the various militas as the real liberators.

For a self proclaimed realist, you seem to have a disconnect from reality. Is it willful or are you really just that out of it?

Only if you cherry pick certain instances, which there are far less than the military itself. It's a war zone and accidents happen. And nearly all the terrorists could be classified as innocent civilians by their actual occupations.

So it's better to have more of our own military forces taking these highly dangerous positions than soldiers of fortune? I think not.

Unless of course you seek more U.S. casualties and the situation as an excuse for politically undermining the war. Which is what Blackwater's critics are about.

For a self proclaimed realist, you seem to have a disconnect from reality. Is it willful or are you really just that out of it?

Can't it be both?

I suspect that Blackwater is owned and operated by a bald man in oddly conservative clothing stroking a white kitty. *nod*

You mean Blackwater is owned by Dr. Evil?

So it's better to have more of our own military forces taking these highly dangerous positions than soldiers of fortune? I think not.

Unless of course you seek more U.S. casualties and the situation as an excuse for politically undermining the war. Which is what Blackwater's critics are about.

Well, competent soldiers of fortune wouldnt be an issue. Also, you ignored the whole part about the lawfully elected sovergein government saying they are NOT ALLOWED in the country. By ignoring the Iraqi government, we are showing that they actually hold no power, that we are an occupying force, and it gives credence to the allegations that the current Iraqi government is nothing but a puppet government.

Again, for realist, you really are short sighted.

And Im going to keep ignoring your accusations that teh ebil liberal media is out to destroy America, because those allegations dont deserve any serious attention. Might as well save your breath.

You mean Blackwater is owned by Dr. Evil?

Or one of his contemporaries. *nod*

So it's better to have more of our own military forces taking these highly dangerous positions than soldiers of fortune? I think not.It doesn't sound like you put any thought into it at all, actually. Consider this:
Sensible Person: Why are soldiers so praiseworthy?
"Realistic" Person: Because they risk their lives, you communazi terrorist sympathizer!
Sensible Person: So wouldn't replacing them with trigger happy mercenaries that for whatever reason are not employed with the military remove that risk from them, thus making them no longer praiseworthy, in addition to raising the body count of innocent bystanders?
"Realistic" Person: You hate the troops!
Unless of course you seek more U.S. casualties and the situation as an excuse for politically undermining the war. Which is what Blackwater's critics are about.Drat! The gig is up!

It's no secret that Blackwater is another U.S. contractor like Halliburton having a field day raking in money and raping the collective anus of the Iraqi public that was deliberately left gaping open by Paul Bremer and the CPA. Even less of a secret we have Busheviks like HSHPE defending the exploitation.

Despite the obvious propaganda campaign against them by The Nation and other leftist publications, I don't understand how anyone that wasn't a terrorist sympathizer like them would want Blackwater to be removed as a hired security force.

They are objectively called mercenaries actually. If you don't have a problem with mercenaries then that's fine, just don't start crying to us when they do a New Orleans in you're neighborhood.

You mean Blackwater is owned by Dr. Evil?

You didn't know that?

He even has his own, personal version of the Blackwater logo:
http://i31.tinypic.com/2lka8o9.gif

They are objectively called mercenaries actually. If you don't have a problem with mercenaries then that's fine, just don't start crying to us when they do a New Orleans in you're neighborhood.

I don't have a problem with mercenaries. Why would anyone?

The New Orleans makes little sense, but you are a communist, so I'm sure it has something to do with blaming a natural disaster on capitalists.

An awful lot of the people who died in Hurricane Katrina should have "Stupidity" written as the cause of death. You ever seen those ignorant fools talking about how the government blew up the levee's and you know who I'm talking about.

Despite the obvious propaganda campaign against them by The Nation and other leftist publications, I don't understand how anyone that wasn't a terrorist sympathizer like them would want Blackwater to be removed as a hired security force.

Is it my imagination, or did you just call all good and civilized people - the people who want disgusting excuses for organizations like Blackwater removed - "terrorist sympathizers?"

How lame. At the very least you could call us all actual terrorists, or perhaps 'race traitors', or poop-heads or something mildly entertaining like that.

Is it my imagination, or did you just call all good and civilized people - the people who want disgusting excuses for organizations like Blackwater removed - "terrorist sympathizers?"

How lame. At the very least you could call us all actual terrorists, or perhaps 'race traitors', or poop-heads or something mildly entertaining like that.

Ignorant good people might want them removed because of what they've read in the media, which has done everything it can to remove Republicans from office at any opportunity and and undermine the war, through means like the campaign against Blackwater. Taking away a large security force that will probably cost the lives of more troops and once again, help bring about more bad press. And yes, I'm saying I do believe that a large part of the media and people on the left want our soldiers to be killed and for things in Iraq to never get stable, for political purposes.

Ignorant good people

Didn't you hear me? I wanted something entertaining. "Ignorant good people" is even lamer than "terrorist sympathizers." Surely you can think of something better than that.

So what, you want me to make up some very offensive name, so you can feel like a superior intellectual? I'm sure you can do that anyway.

And nearly all the terrorists could be classified as innocent civilians by their actual occupations.

lol wut

I don't know about any of you, but I personally would love to own/lead an organization like Blackwater, minus all the controversies and stuff. Such a powerful private paramilitary force is intriguing to me.

So what, you want me to make up some very offensive name

Well, I think it's really you who wants to do that. You sure don't label everyone who disagrees with you as a "terrorist sympathizer" unless you're trying to be very offensive.

, so you can feel like a superior intellectual? I'm sure you can do that anyway.

You're right I can! So this really isn't about making me feel superior and it's about you quit holding back for the sake of self-censorship. Tell us how you really feel, that's what I'm getting at.

lol wut

You think that being a terrorist is always a full time job? A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are fanatical muslims who have civilian jobs. And sometimes they are identified as civilians instead of terrorists in coverage.

Most terrorists are technically civilians. That's what I'm saying. A baker plants a bomb and then gets killed, then a reporter with an agenda can portray it as a civilian getting killed. You understand what I'm saying?

Well, I think it's really you who wants to do that. You sure don't label everyone who disagrees with you as a "terrorist sympathizer" unless you're trying to be very offensive.

You're right I can! So this really isn't about making me feel superior and it's about you quit holding back for the sake of self-censorship. Tell us how you really feel, that's what I'm getting at.

I don't hold back my views. That should be obvious to anyone. Except for complying with the board rules. I don't use so-called racist terms here like I do in real life for people that deserve it. However I thought it was perfectly clear that I acknowledge most of Blackwater's leading critics as people who view the U.S. as the villain in every scenario and are terrorist sympathizers.

I told hold back. Except for the board rules. I don't use so-called racist terms like I do in real life for people that deserve it. However I thought it was perfectly clear that I acknowledge most of Blackwater's leading critics as people who view the U.S. as the villain in every scenario and are terrorist sympathizers.

Yes, and I thought I made it clear that "america hater" and "terrorist sympathizer" are lame insults. You want to insult people that's fine, but you aren't even doing it WELL.

That's my point.

Your insults, however lame or not, aren't arguments and are just fallacious twaddle. If you were wondering why I wasn't treating them with the respect you thought they might deserve.

You think that being a terrorist is a full time job? A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are fanatical muslims who have civilian jobs. And sometimes they are identified as civilians instead of terrorists in coverage.

Most terrorists are technically civilians. That's what I'm saying. A baker plants a bomb and then gets killed, then a reporter with an agenda can portray it as a civilian getting kicked. You understand what I'm saying?

So someone who plants a bomb can be technically classified as an innocent civilian, as long as they do things other than terrorising. Riiiiiight.

So someone who plants a bomb can be technically classified as an innocent civilian, as long as they do things other than terrorising. Riiiiiight.

You are being willfully ignorant. I'm saying that a lot of the so-called civilians that Blackwater has been accused of killing have in fact have been terrorists who are portrayed as civilians. I repeat, a lot of the insurgents in Iraq have civilian jobs and can be portrayed as being innocent civilians by biased reporting.

I won't repeat myself again, anyone should be able to understand what I'm saying.

Yes, and I thought I made it clear that "america hater" and "terrorist sympathizer" are lame insults. You want to insult people that's fine, but you aren't even doing it WELL.

That's my point.

Your insults, however lame or not, aren't arguments and are just fallacious twaddle. If you were wondering why I wasn't treating them with the respect you thought they might deserve.

They are not meant to be insults in the manner you are saying. I'm describing what I see as their viewpoint. They sympathize with the terrorists, I don't feel the need to get creative to describe that.

Like I said, you might think you are being some kind of witty poser, but you just look like any other politically correct faux-intellectual with terms like fallacious.

You are being willfully ignorant. I'm saying that a lot of the so-called civilians that Blackwater has been accused of killing have in fact have been terrorists who are portrayed as civilians. I repeat, a lot of the insurgents in Iraq have civilian jobs and can be portrayed as being innocent civilians by biased reporting.

I won't repeat myself again, anyone should be able to understand what I'm saying.

Evidence?

Evidence?

See the signature. Anyone that won't accept that a lot of the so-called innocent civilians that people call the terrorists in Gitmo and Iraq have been in fact terrorists, even if they weren't caught on film killing our soldiers.

You capture someone on the battlefield in Afghanistan and according to the critics of Gitmo, you need clear video evidence of them actually fighting.

And nearly all the terrorists could be classified as innocent civilians by their actual occupations.

You think that being a terrorist is always a full time job? A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are fanatical muslims who have civilian jobs. And sometimes they are identified as civilians instead of terrorists in coverage.

Most terrorists are technically civilians. That's what I'm saying. A baker plants a bomb and then gets killed, then a reporter with an agenda can portray it as a civilian getting killed. You understand what I'm saying?

You are being willfully ignorant. I'm saying that a lot of the so-called civilians that Blackwater has been accused of killing have in fact have been terrorists who are portrayed as civilians. I repeat, a lot of the insurgents in Iraq have civilian jobs and can be portrayed as being innocent civilians by biased reporting.

I won't repeat myself again, anyone should be able to understand what I'm saying.

What you're saying is that the media is technically correct in portraying terrorists as innocent civilians through biased reporting, hence making the reports of killings of innocent civilians irrelevant. I call BS. Portraying terrorists as innocent civilians isn't so much bias as outright lying. Media outlets tend to shy away from that.

What you're saying is that the media is technically correct in portraying terrorists as innocent civilians through biased reporting, hence making the reports of killings of innocent civilians irrelevant. I call BS. Portraying terrorists as innocent civilians isn't so much bias as outright lying. Media outlets tend to shy away from that.

Ok. I'm going to give you an example of the type of reporting I mean.

U.S. soldiers or contractors kill a group of Iraqi men who were armed and firing on them.

Then the village they are from tell the reporters that they were civilians who held so and so jobs and the media reports them as civilians being killed or doesn't do any real research into it. It happens A LOT. I repeat, most of the insurgents are armed civilians and can be portrayed as civilians being killed in press reports.

I suspect that Blackwater is owned and operated by a bald man in oddly conservative clothing stroking a white kitty. *nod*

Erik Prince is in many ways worse.

Despite the obvious propaganda campaign against them by The Nation and other leftist publications, I don't understand how anyone that wasn't a terrorist sympathizer like them would want Blackwater to be removed as a hired security force.

They've been involved in a number of other nasty incidents. To give you one example, the company is partly responsible for much of the trouble in Fallujah. When I Marine Expeditionary Force took over from the 82nd, they had a good plan in store for pacifying the town. Then the cowboys from Blackwater were killed, in part due to the company's negligence (http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/blackwater/story/278059.html). The planned proper counter-insurgency operation was then ditched, over the commander on the grounds objections (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16309-2004Sep12.html), and the result was a goat screw of the first order.

If the company had protected it's people properly, according to their contract, the whoile mess could have been avoided. The escalation was yeat another mistake in a long, long list.

Only if you cherry pick certain instances, which there are far less than the military itself. It's a war zone and accidents happen. And nearly all the terrorists could be classified as innocent civilians by their actual occupations.

So it's better to have more of our own military forces taking these highly dangerous positions than soldiers of fortune? I think not.

Unless of course you seek more U.S. casualties and the situation as an excuse for politically undermining the war. Which is what Blackwater's critics are about.

Erm... no. War crimes are war crimes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) Blackwater's been involed in a number of them. The Iraqi's kicked them out. They shouldn't be there at all.

I don't have a problem with mercenaries. Why would anyone?

They have a long history of being highly problematic.

The New Orleans makes little sense, but you are a communist, so I'm sure it has something to do with blaming a natural disaster on capitalists.

An awful lot of the people who died in Hurricane Katrina should have "Stupidity" written as the cause of death. You ever seen those ignorant fools talking about how the government blew up the levee's and you know who I'm talking about.

Erm... you do realise Blackwater was hired by the Feds in the aftermath of Katrina (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12634), don't you?

See the signature. Anyone that won't accept that a lot of the so-called innocent civilians that people call the terrorists in Gitmo and Iraq have been in fact terrorists, even if they weren't caught on film killing our soldiers.

You capture someone on the battlefield in Afghanistan and according to the critics of Gitmo, you need clear video evidence of them actually fighting.

So you have no evidence at all for your ridiculous claims that the media portrays terrorists as innocent civilians. I see.

So you have no evidence at all for your ridiculous claims that the media portrays terrorists as innocent civilians. I see.

This would be what the 10th time I'm accused of this and then I start going back on my promise not to research plain facts again and then the thread dies when I post them. It's not going to happen again. You either recognize this or don't bother commenting on it, because you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll be ignoring the posts from anyone who doesn't have a clue about Blackwater's alleged misbehavior.

This would be what the 10th time, I'm accused of this and then I start going back on my promise not to research plain facts again and then the thread dies. It's not going to happen again. You either recognize this or don't bother commenting on it, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

These are not plain facts you are reffering to. I recognize the fact that many insurgents may hold civilian jobs, but that does not mean the innocent civilians killed were actually terrorists. Unless you can provide evidence for your claims, there is really no reason for anyone to accept them.

I love how we keep saying the Iraq government is its own elected government and talk about how its now capable of functioning on its own, and we are not an occupying force but instead just there to help out, and then when their "sovergein government" tells us something, we basically tell them to bugger off.

Why do you hate freedom?







Yes, this post is 100% sarcasm. ;)

They are not meant to be insults in the manner you are saying. I'm describing what I see as their viewpoint. They sympathize with the terrorists, I don't feel the need to get creative to describe that.

Oh you don't MEAN to be insulting, it's just an OBSERVATION. Sort of like how one might observe something about your mother, or speculate that you might be a communist. Nothing offensive is meant there!

Who do you think you're fooling?

Like I said, you might think you are being some kind of witty poser, but you just look like any other politically correct faux-intellectual with terms like fallacious.

~we don't take kindly to yer high-fallootin' college talk 'round here, stranger!

What's funny is you think simple English is "politically correct faux-intellectual." Says it all really. Guess we'll just use one-syllable words around you from now on, so you don't feel offended, OK?

Oh you don't MEAN to be insulting, it's just an OBSERVATION. Sort of like how one might observe something about your mother, or speculate that you might be a communist. Nothing offensive is meant there!

Who do you think you're fooling?

~we don't take kindly to yer high-fallootin' college talk 'round here, stranger!

What's funny is you think simple English is "politically correct faux-intellectual." Says it all really. Guess we'll just use one-syllable words around you from now on, so you don't feel offended, OK?

My apologies. The conversation is obviously way over your head if that's what you observed.

This would be what the 10th time I'm accused of this and then I start going back on my promise not to research plain facts again and then the thread dies when I post them. It's not going to happen again. You either recognize this or don't bother commenting on it, because you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll be ignoring the posts from anyone who doesn't have a clue about Blackwater's alleged misbehavior.

You are a pedophile. I don't have to research plain facts that prove you are a pedophile. It's not going to happen. Either everyone recognizes that you are a pedophile, or don't bother commenting on it, because it's as clear as day that you drink the blood of young white American babies after you sodomize them.

I can make baseless claims too!

See the signature.

I see it. It lacks evidence.

That just doesn't work.

What I've said were facts. Anyone that knows anything about the Blackwater situation should know that a lot of the allegations against them are based on claims that people they killed were civilians and they dispute that. A lot of the so-called civilians were actually terrorists who held civilian jobs.

You are just making yourself look like an idiot. But since a lot of your audience can relate, I guess it doesn't much matter. I would be surprised if any of you know really know anything about the Blackwater allegations, hell just like Gitmo. People in that thread didn't even know who Omar Khadr, which tells you the level of information they have about it.

That just doesn't work.

What I've said were facts.

Then you ARE actualy capable of proving them right?

I've already done so several times after pages of prodding. It's not going to happen again. Anyone that comments on this should already know about the allegations. Read the signature.

I've already done so several times after pages of prodding. It's not going to happen again. Anyone that comments on this should already know about the allegations. Read the signature.
Oh my, how cute. After several pages of blindly refusing to offer any proof whatsoever to back out your outrageous allegations and assumptions, you now claim that all those pages of refusing to offer any proof whatsoever are all the proof you need or are willing to give.
Circular reason much, do you?

Anyone else notice that there's only strong supporter of Balckwater on this board and his nom-de-plume shares a strong resemblance to the owner of Blackwater itself?
coincidence....?

My apologies. The conversation is obviously way over your head if that's what you observed.

You think you're being really cute, don't you. "I know! I'll pretend to be so stupid that he just won't know how to respond. Tee-hee!"

I've already done so several times after pages of prodding. It's not going to happen again. Anyone that comments on this should already know about the allegations. Read the signature.

You know you're right. Andrew Jackson WAS a badass. Hell, a man tried to assassinate him once, and after both of the criminal's pistols misfired, President Jackson beat the man's ass with a cane.

Granted Jackson also proposed and implimented a "Final Solution" on par with Adolph Hitler, but I suppose that completely destroying a race of people is rather badass in itself, morals aside.

Granted Jackson also proposed and implimented a "Final Solution" on par with Adolph Hitler, but I suppose that completely destroying a race of people is rather badass in itself, morals aside.

Terrible as Jackson was, his "Final Solution" was nowhere near on par with Hitler. The only people that can reasonably be called on par with Hitler are Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Timur, and perhaps a handful of others.

Terrible as Jackson was, his "Final Solution" was already on par with Hitler. The only people that can reasonably be called on par with Hitler are Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Timur, and perhaps a handful of others.

o.O do you have a type-o in there or is it time for me to go to sleep? He's already on par with Hitler but can't reasonably be called on par with him? Seems contradictory to me...

o.O do you have a type-o in there or is it time for me to go to sleep? He's already on par with Hitler but can't reasonably be called on par with him? Seems contradictory to me...

Sorry, yes, it was a typo. Blame my lack of sleep.

*goes to edit*

Now I fully disagree with the Indian Removal policy. These were largely Indians who had adapted to the times, but let's be realistic. There was about 45,000 Indians who were forced to move to another area of the country where they were given land and I believe the total compensation was around $70 million, which was a hell of a lot of money at the time. The highest and likely exaggerated estimates of Indians who died was 4,000 while other research puts the figure at around 2,000.

They all died from diseases that killed countless numbers of settlers of that era and one of the most overrated events in our history.

Removing 45,000 people and resulting in the deaths of 2-4,000 hardly puts one in the category of Hitler.

Interestingly, they also owned several thousand black slaves, which you don't hear much about in stories about the "Trail of Tears" do you?

I don't hold back my views. That should be obvious to anyone. Except for complying with the board rules. I don't use so-called racist terms here like I do in real life for people that deserve it. However I thought it was perfectly clear that I acknowledge most of Blackwater's leading critics as people who view the U.S. as the villain in every scenario and are terrorist sympathizers.
You are being willfully ignorant. I'm saying that a lot of the so-called civilians that Blackwater has been accused of killing have in fact have been terrorists who are portrayed as civilians. I repeat, a lot of the insurgents in Iraq have civilian jobs and can be portrayed as being innocent civilians by biased reporting.

I won't repeat myself again, anyone should be able to understand what I'm saying.
I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.For someone that has gained absolutely nothing from philosophy, you certainly open your mouth wide to lecture other people about willful ignorance.
This would be what the 10th time I'm accused of this and then I start going back on my promise not to research plain facts again and then the thread dies when I post them. It's not going to happen again. You either recognize this or don't bother commenting on it, because you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll be ignoring the posts from anyone who doesn't have a clue about Blackwater's alleged misbehavior."Blah, blah, I have evidence-no you can't see it, whine, whine, I work so much-no one appreciates my efforts."
That's how I read that.

That just doesn't work.

What I've said were facts. Anyone that knows anything about the Blackwater situation should know that a lot of the allegations against them are based on claims that people they killed were civilians and they dispute that. A lot of the so-called civilians were actually terrorists who held civilian jobs.

You are just making yourself look like an idiot. But since a lot of your audience can relate, I guess it doesn't much matter. I would be surprised if any of you know really know anything about the Blackwater allegations, hell just like Gitmo. People in that thread didn't even know who Omar Khadr, which tells you the level of information they have about it.No, what you've made are allegations, and whenever anyone calls your bluff, you point to your sig or whine about how we should cut you some slack because you're lazy.

I find it amusing how in HSH Prince Erik's little world view, everything he knows is common knowledge and doesn't have to be proven.

If it was common knowledge, then more people would know about it, wouldn't they you daft fool? Blackwater is a mercenary company. They're in it for the money. Furthermore, they were thrown out by the Iraqi government. This makes them, for all purposes, as much a terrorist organization as any other unwanted armed group in Iraq.

Circular reason much, do you?

Anyone else notice that there's only strong supporter of Balckwater on this board and his nom-de-plume shares a strong resemblance to the owner of Blackwater itself?
coincidence....?

Its rather damning that theres but one troll available to the defence....You'd even get better than that in a "WMD" thread......

A shame, really. The least they could have done was wait until Blackwater was officially cleared of the charges before letting them go back.

One of the few rational post in this whole thread. Everyone needs to stop speculating on how evil or innocent Blackwater are because until the charges are fully addressed, realistically you don't know shit.

Can't wait until they start their work in Sudan, along with Halliburton. No idea why the UN actually hired them, seeing as the leader of Blackwater is into some kind of weird Teutonic vision of the future dominated by a white, Christian elite. Sending such people to Sudan to provide security is a pretty poor idea, in my opinion.

One of the few rational post in this whole thread. Everyone needs to stop speculating on how evil or innocent Blackwater are because until the charges are fully addressed, realistically you don't know shit.

The signficance of this is not related to their guilt or innocence. The Iraqi Government wanted them gone, and has been ignored. This further undermines US talk of how they're "guests" and that the Iraqi state is soverign and independent.

The signficance of this is not related to their guilt or innocence. The Iraqi Government wanted them gone, and has been ignored. This further undermines US talk of how they're "guests" and that the Iraqi state is soverign and independent.

Well for one thing, Iraq wanted them out based on the same type of immediately prejudging them as guilty. But that doesn't matter, since most of the posts have little to do with this, and more to do with asserting that they kill innocents (implying it to be intentional) as fact.

Can't wait until they start their work in Sudan, along with Halliburton. No idea why the UN actually hired them, seeing as the leader of Blackwater is into some kind of weird Teutonic vision of the future dominated by a white, Christian elite. Sending such people to Sudan to provide security is a pretty poor idea, in my opinion.

Who Erik Prince? Source? I know he's fairly right wing, but I don't think he's that extreme.

Who Erik Prince? Source? I know he's fairly right wing, but I don't think he's that extreme.
Aye, born again Christian and all that jazz.

http://www.nndb.com/people/926/000117575/

Yeah, I think it says enough about Erik Prince that despite being a billionaire, he decided to become a Navy SEAL.

If you actually believe that because he's a conservative Christian that he wants some sport of Teutonic Reich, then that says enough about you.

And for the record. NNDB.com is run by leftists. It's a good site to get information about a person's middle name or where they want to school, but usually not from the bio.

Michael Moore's profile = http://www.nndb.com/people/554/000024482/ is a perfect example. You can tell exactly the type of mentality behind the writers.

Yeah, I think it says enough about Erik Prince that despite being a billionaire, he decided to become a Navy SEAL.

If you actually believe that because he's a conservative Christian that he wants some sport of Teutonic Reich, then that says enough about you.

And for the record. NNDB.com is run by leftists. It's a good site to get information about a person's middle name or where they want to school, but usually not from the bio.

Michael Moore's profile = http://www.nndb.com/people/554/000024482/ is a perfect example. You can tell exactly the type of mentality behind the writers.


I see no bias.

I see no bias.
Actually, it does appear to be a bit of a leftie circlejerk. Aye, sorry about using that as a source.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.blackwater/index.html

This being the same Blackwater the Amazingly Soverign and Independent Iraqi Goverment 'threw out' and wanted gone.

Oh, Jesus.

Who Erik Prince? Source? I know he's fairly right wing, but I don't think he's that extreme.

He may not be that extreme, but he is fairly far out of the mainstream.

Prince landed an internship in the early 1990s in the White House under then-President George Bush. Again, he was disappointed.

He later told the Grand Rapids Press: "I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with -- homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kinds of bills."

But he didn't reject politics.

He stumped for Pat Buchanan, and interned at Bauer's Family Research Council in Virginia, even climbing trees in Bauer's backyard to trim dead branches.

Prince's connection with Christian conservatives was strengthened by another internship, with California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who recalled talking with Prince about his ideals.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/NEWS06/710070665

In the past 15 years, Prince says, he has attended "one or two" meetings of the Council for National Policy, a Christian right organization founded by the Rev. Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" series.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/43361

And a more balanced profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince

Our shitty country needs a fucking draft.

Really make people appreciate our imperialistic policies.

We're just as human as the people we exploit.

One of the few rational post in this whole thread. Everyone needs to stop speculating on how evil or innocent Blackwater are because until the charges are fully addressed, realistically you don't know shit.The post isn't as rational as you make it out to be :p

For one, I highly doubt that the charges will ever be fully addressed, it being the nature of the current administration to continue denying its mistakes well after they've been exposed. Allowing mercenary companies the leeway they've received without adding accountability to the mix is something the Bush administration will do its utmost to pretend never happened.

Yeah, I think it says enough about Erik Prince that despite being a billionaire, he decided to become a Navy SEAL.

If you actually believe that because he's a conservative Christian that he wants some sport of Teutonic Reich, then that says enough about you.

And for the record. NNDB.com is run by leftists. It's a good site to get information about a person's middle name or where they want to school, but usually not from the bio.

Michael Moore's profile = http://www.nndb.com/people/554/000024482/ is a perfect example. You can tell exactly the type of mentality behind the writers.
I see no bias.
Damnit. There I was, hoping these two opinions would cancel eachother out in a spectacular show of fireworks... :(

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.blackwater/index.html

This being the same Blackwater the Amazingly Soverign and Independent Iraqi Goverment 'threw out' and wanted gone.

This completely undermines the whole "transfer of sovereignty" road -how... Very bad for American PR, but I'm not sure that they even care anymore. I don't have a problem with having a mercenary force per se, but not all mercenaries are equal, and Blackwater are, to get all technical about it, shite.

No, but maybe him and Cheney are mates.... Cheney is such a Dick. He and his like minded corporate sucm are the cancer of this nation.