Blackwater in a time of peace

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone bashing Blackwater employees for being "trigger-happy", "mercenary", or "indifferent to human life" is basically retarded.

THOSE ARE GOOD TRAITS IN AN ACTIVE COMBAT ZONE. Good! Not bad!

If you were in Iraq, would you want a bodyguard who (1) shot first, asked questions later; or (2) consulted the Geneva convention before turning off his safety?

[/ QUOTE ]

Er no, not in modern urban warfare.

You'd def want a professional who can take quick decisions yes, and aren't afraid of open fire if it is needed - but war has changed.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
THOSE ARE GOOD TRAITS IN AN ACTIVE COMBAT ZONE. Good! Not bad!

[/ QUOTE ]

From the point of view of 9/11, the resourcefulness of terrorists was good too. Your argument sounds like a lunatics argument!

Sorry, to say again, according to the Geneva Convention definition, Blackwater is an unlawful combatant [read terrorist, according to the US] organization!

Shame on you, Blackwater!

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone bashing Blackwater employees for being "trigger-happy", "mercenary", or "indifferent to human life" is basically retarded.

THOSE ARE GOOD TRAITS IN AN ACTIVE COMBAT ZONE. Good! Not bad!

If you were in Iraq, would you want a bodyguard who (1) shot first, asked questions later; or (2) consulted the Geneva convention before turning off his safety?

[/ QUOTE ]

Er no, not in modern urban warfare.

You'd def want a professional who can take quick decisions yes, and aren't afraid of open fire if it is needed - but war has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree now, as a morally upstanding (LOL), disinterested observer posting from a message board.

But if I was in the [censored], I assure you, I would just want someone ready and willing to kill everything that moves.

And unless you and MidGe have managed to reach some sort of enlightened state that transcends self-interest...well...

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
From the point of view of 9/11, the resourcefulness of terrorists was good too. Your argument sounds like a lunatics argument!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a lunatic for arguing that the best soldiers are cold-blooded?

Maybe, my dear MidGe, you don't understand what soldiers do. They kill people!

Is it clear now?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]


I guess I agree now, as a morally upstanding (LOL), disinterested observer posting from a message board.

But if I was in the [censored], I assure you, I would just want someone ready and willing to kill everything that moves.

And unless you and MidGe have managed to reach some sort of enlightened state that transcends self-interest...well...

[/ QUOTE ]

So many war scenarios now are about protecting civilians in some form or another. Plus its a media war also. And then there is the thing about going through life nowing your squad/men/self plugged 3 civilians needlessly, or maybe spending it in a jailcell if you get unlucky.

I remember when the close quarters fire drill used to be 'take aim, fire' -> now its 'take aim, identify, fire' or some such.

And it isn't a transcendental state. Buddy of mine just got back from Afghanistan, and he was so pleased with his squad down there. Because they were not triggerhappy and had awesome fire discipline. They could solve problems without opening fire and without having to worry about one of his men not being able to keep it. And he also knew they would open fire if it was needed and he knew they would follow his orders if he gave them.

THAT is a good soldier - not a triggerhappy guy with no respect for life.

(I'm not reflecting on blackwater personnel here, but on soldiers in general)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
And unless you and MidGe have managed to reach some sort of enlightened state that transcends self-interest...well...


[/ QUOTE ]

Enlightened state that transcends self-interest would probably look like not interfering in other nations businesses. The US and it allies should never have gotten into Iraq in the first place. Now that they have done so, completely incompetently, without a semblance of a plan for what would happen after mission was accomplished ( [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) and without valid reasons (no WMD), imo, the US should bear the burden of reconstructing Iraq. That means that every US citizen should pay increased taxes to be given to Iraq until they turn the Iraqis population to look at them favorably. Let's start by counting the well in excess of 500,000 civilians deaths over those that would have happened under Hussein, a great friend of the US, (would you like me to get links to photo's of Rumsfeld and Hussein?), reconstruction of the entire infrastructure to what it was (a model of Arab secularism in the region), and I guess we should throw a few punitive damages as well as those seem very much to the taste of the US in the last half a century.

We should add that any non governmental/civilian corporation that got involved and benefited from the war should be investigated by a properly constituted and independent war tribunal and fined accordingly (to relieve the burden on ordinary, misled, taxpayers). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Shame on you Blackwater!

[Subfallen]

Oh, definitely, if you step back and get any wider perspective than "please god don't let me die" then you immediately have additional metrics to judge with.

I don't dispute that, I just think those finer points are fairly irrelevant compared to the key requirement: very good at killing possible threats very fast.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THOSE ARE GOOD TRAITS IN AN ACTIVE COMBAT ZONE. Good! Not bad!

[/ QUOTE ]

From the point of view of 9/11, the resourcefulness of terrorists was good too. Your argument sounds like a lunatics argument!

Sorry, to say again, according to the Geneva Convention definition, Blackwater is an unlawful combatant [read terrorist, according to the US] organization!

Shame on you, Blackwater!

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of lunatics, dates cannot have points of view.

And secondly, they are not combatants, they are bodyguards. They don't attack unless the person they are protecting is attacked.

Thirdly, why do you keep ending every post with "shame on you blackwater". They aren't [censored] reading this, and its just annoying. Now, its 7am here, so I'm going to sleep, but I hope when I wake up in 4 hours, this "shame on you" business is over with.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
And secondly, they are not combatants, they are bodyguards. They don't attack unless the person they are protecting is attacked.


[/ QUOTE ]


No... Not another one in denial! Do you watch the news? Umm, maybe this question should be do you have news or only propaganda?

Have you seen any news about Blackwater in the last few weeks?

Here is a Washington Post receent article in case you think the latest is the first mistake, incompetent or terrorist behavior by Blackwater.

Shame on you Blackwater!

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THOSE ARE GOOD TRAITS IN AN ACTIVE COMBAT ZONE. Good! Not bad!

[/ QUOTE ]

From the point of view of 9/11, the resourcefulness of terrorists was good too. Your argument sounds like a lunatics argument!

Sorry, to say again, according to the Geneva Convention definition, Blackwater is an unlawful combatant [read terrorist, according to the US] organization!

Shame on you, Blackwater!

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of lunatics, dates cannot have points of view.

And secondly, they are not combatants, they are bodyguards. They don't attack unless the person they are protecting is attacked.

Thirdly, why do you keep ending every post with "shame on you blackwater". They aren't [censored] reading this, and its just annoying. Now, its 7am here, so I'm going to sleep, but I hope when I wake up in 4 hours, this "shame on you" business is over with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has he made another post with 0 content regarding to Blackwater and 100% related to US military operations and or "Bush is Evil" yet?