Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:37 pm
The more I read about these guys, the more it makes me sick:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/ ... index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/ ... index.html
Page 1 of 1
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:59 pm
Four More Years!
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:15 pm
inc onslaught of 'THATS CNN PROPAGANDA LEFTIST REPORTING'
man am i sorry i voted for bush.
man am i sorry i voted for bush.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:24 pm
Some of us have been decrying the slaughter of innocent civilians for some time now. This is just the latest incident, and somewhat more egregious than most. Don't even begin to think for a second, however, that this is the first case where US forces (whether regular military or contractor) have blown away innocent civilians without provocation.
As for voting for Bush, well, I hate to say I told you so, but.......
-Arlos
As for voting for Bush, well, I hate to say I told you so, but.......
-Arlos
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:20 pm
Right, because voting for any of the House or Senate democrats who gave the executive branch the power to enter into war was a better choice. Don't start drawing lines in the sand and call it a canyon. Both political parties are 100% to blame for this war including your beloved Hillary Clinton.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:37 pm
I'm of the opinion that they should remove any armed service non-military personel. The void created would force a draft to take place or our "retreat" from the country.
I'm no war knowledge base but outside of the past 10 years or so, has the military used services like this in the past?
Also, as I understand it, Blackwater makes up someting like 1-5% of the total "3rd party" armed services. That isn't to say Blackwater is good or bad but 5% of something like 150,000, doesn't seem all that many to me (pulling some of those from the grey matter via NPR from a couple weeks back, I could be way off).
I'm no war knowledge base but outside of the past 10 years or so, has the military used services like this in the past?
Also, as I understand it, Blackwater makes up someting like 1-5% of the total "3rd party" armed services. That isn't to say Blackwater is good or bad but 5% of something like 150,000, doesn't seem all that many to me (pulling some of those from the grey matter via NPR from a couple weeks back, I could be way off).
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:47 pm
Uh, where did I say I loved Hillary Clinton? I don't think I've ever said any such thing. And yes, I deplore Congress' vote to let Bush do whatever he wanted in the Middle east. I believe I have excoriated them repeatedly over the issue on this very board, and it's one reason I like, say, Kucinich, even though he's a bit too moonbatty-liberal on some things even for ME.
Of ALL of the possibilities out there, I LIKE Al Gore, but he won't run.
As a result I EXPECT Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, and I like her better than any of the Republican dickweeds. (Yes, even more than Ron Paul, because he'd cut off ALL social services and privatize air so that some company could sell it. Still, he's light years better than the rest of the pack of drooling mongoloids the Repubs have trotted out.)
Expectation of victory != "Beloved" status. (for the tech impaired != means "not equal")
As for Blackwater, I am in agreement: We should get rid of all such military "contractors" from the area. If for no other reason than think about the morale damage to troops when they see people getting paid something like 1000 a day in some cases for the same jobs the average soldier is getting paid 50k a year for. (or whatever their pay scale is.)
-Arlos
Of ALL of the possibilities out there, I LIKE Al Gore, but he won't run.
As a result I EXPECT Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, and I like her better than any of the Republican dickweeds. (Yes, even more than Ron Paul, because he'd cut off ALL social services and privatize air so that some company could sell it. Still, he's light years better than the rest of the pack of drooling mongoloids the Repubs have trotted out.)
Expectation of victory != "Beloved" status. (for the tech impaired != means "not equal")
As for Blackwater, I am in agreement: We should get rid of all such military "contractors" from the area. If for no other reason than think about the morale damage to troops when they see people getting paid something like 1000 a day in some cases for the same jobs the average soldier is getting paid 50k a year for. (or whatever their pay scale is.)
-Arlos
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:13 pm
Problem is the Dem's want to cut funding, cut troop levels and etc... the contractors are there to do the job the military can't due to lack of man power.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:42 pm
Oh blackwater, keep on rolling... Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on me
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:52 am
Diekan wrote:Problem is the Dem's want to cut funding, cut troop levels and etc... the contractors are there to do the job the military can't due to lack of man power.
Then there should be a draft, and that friend would kill this war outright.
You could take it to an extreme and privitize ALL functions of the armed forces
, I doubt that would cause any problems /sarcasm off.Re: Blackwater
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:43 pm
Diekan wrote:the contractors are there to do the job the military can't due to lack of man power.
Why would anyone join the service when you have a psychopath running your country? It's his own fault no ones joining.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Zanchief wrote:Diekan wrote:the contractors are there to do the job the military can't due to lack of man power.
Why would anyone join the service when you have a psychopath running your country? It's his own fault no ones joining.
I'm not arguing that point. But, you can't deny the Dem's outright blockage of any meaningful surges, moneys and or all the other *things* needed over there. They're screaming to bring them home and end the war.... fine... but that doesn't mean you leave those over there hanging with their pants down as sitting ducks just so you can prove your political point.
I hate Bush more than anyone on this board... I think anyway... I think he's done more to damage this country than any other president, with the exception of Carter. However, it's sickening to see how the troops over there are being put in harms way (more so than just doing what they're there to do) just so Palosi can make the Moveon.org fanbois happy.
There are in fact PLENTY of troops here (stateside). Plenty that could be sent over to adjust and make it unnecessary for hack, redneck civilian contractors to fulfill their boyhood "Delta Force" movie fantasies.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:44 pm
Diekan wrote:I hate Bush more than anyone on this board... I think anyway... I think he's done more to damage this country than any other president,
Ever heard of a guy called Lyndon B. Johnson?
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:48 pm
Ouchyfish wrote:Diekan wrote:I hate Bush more than anyone on this board... I think anyway... I think he's done more to damage this country than any other president,
Ever heard of a guy called Lyndon B. Johnson?
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:31 am
Ouchyfish wrote:Diekan wrote:I hate Bush more than anyone on this board... I think anyway... I think he's done more to damage this country than any other president,
Ever heard of a guy called Lyndon B. Johnson?
while johnson was a mess unto himself, this fucking douchebag FAR outdoes him.
3rd world war anyone?
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:33 am
I'm not so sure. What was the death count during LBJ's run? 45K? That's a bit more than GWB.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:53 am
Eziekial wrote:I'm not so sure. What was the death count during LBJ's run? 45K? That's a bit more than GWB.
LBJs intentions weren't quite as despicable though.
His heart was in the right place, GWB is a callous psychopath that would gladly risk the lives of thousands of people to try and get his name written into the history books. His entire presidency has been one big effort to seek his father's approval. He's like a sad little lap dog with all the power in the world.
Worst thing is people have been telling you for years and you still re-elected him. It was clear as day for the begining.
I told you so just doesn't seem appropriate anymore.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:04 pm
Eziekial wrote:I'm not so sure. What was the death count during LBJ's run? 45K? That's a bit more than GWB.
it isnt over yet.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:13 pm
WTF have the democrats blocked in the way of appropriations for the troops? Not a damn thing. They've gotten every dollar the military has asked for, and then some. Delaying sending money didn't hurt the troops one bit, they still had months of funds left when the final vote was passed to re-fund everything. Indeed, I can't think of a single concrete example in any way, shape or form that even comes close to what Diekan is alleging. Don't get me wrong, I haven't been ecstatic and thrilled with congress' performance, but if you're going to slam them for something, at least have it be based on, you know, facts.
As for LBJ, he may have mismanaged the Vietnam war by trying to micromanage it, but he was also a huge backer of the Civil Rights movement, and a tireless fighter against poverty, etc. Even with the Vietnam war, it's hard to say he did any worse than Nixon did. I mean, how much better was the average grunt's life in 69 vs 67? LBJ didn't start the war either, it had been building for some time, and really started accelerating under Kennedy. (who records show would have stopped it, if not for the slight issue of getting shot in the head before he could). Not to mention, LBJ at least had the balls to recognize when he was in over his head with the job, and bow out. Remember him saying he will not seek, and would not accept nomination for President? THAT took balls. Bush fucked the job up 6 ways to breakfast his first term, worse than LBJ ever did, and not only ran again, tried to make everyone afraid of what would happen if he DIDN'T win.
Oh no, don't be throwing up LBJ in any sort of "worst" discussion. You want worst, look at people like Coolige and Hoover, who sat and watched the country collapse around them into the Great Depression and dithered. You want WORST, look at Buchanan, who sat and did nothing as the country itself came apart right before the Civil War and Lincoln coming into office. The more Bush goes on though, the more he approaches Coolige/Hoover levels, if he's not there already. I fervently hope he never hits Buchanan levels...
-Arlos
PS, according to http://www.archives.gov/research/vietna ... .html#year , it was 35k under LBJ, not 45k. And Nixon presided over 20k in just his first 3 years.
As for LBJ, he may have mismanaged the Vietnam war by trying to micromanage it, but he was also a huge backer of the Civil Rights movement, and a tireless fighter against poverty, etc. Even with the Vietnam war, it's hard to say he did any worse than Nixon did. I mean, how much better was the average grunt's life in 69 vs 67? LBJ didn't start the war either, it had been building for some time, and really started accelerating under Kennedy. (who records show would have stopped it, if not for the slight issue of getting shot in the head before he could). Not to mention, LBJ at least had the balls to recognize when he was in over his head with the job, and bow out. Remember him saying he will not seek, and would not accept nomination for President? THAT took balls. Bush fucked the job up 6 ways to breakfast his first term, worse than LBJ ever did, and not only ran again, tried to make everyone afraid of what would happen if he DIDN'T win.
Oh no, don't be throwing up LBJ in any sort of "worst" discussion. You want worst, look at people like Coolige and Hoover, who sat and watched the country collapse around them into the Great Depression and dithered. You want WORST, look at Buchanan, who sat and did nothing as the country itself came apart right before the Civil War and Lincoln coming into office. The more Bush goes on though, the more he approaches Coolige/Hoover levels, if he's not there already. I fervently hope he never hits Buchanan levels...
-Arlos
PS, according to http://www.archives.gov/research/vietna ... .html#year , it was 35k under LBJ, not 45k. And Nixon presided over 20k in just his first 3 years.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:42 pm
Arlos wrote:WTF have the democrats blocked in the way of appropriations for the troops? Not a damn thing. They've gotten every dollar the military has asked for, and then some. Delaying sending money didn't hurt the troops one bit, they still had months of funds left when the final vote was passed to re-fund everything. Indeed, I can't think of a single concrete example in any way, shape or form that even comes close to what Diekan is alleging. Don't get me wrong, I haven't been ecstatic and thrilled with congress' performance, but if you're going to slam them for something, at least have it be based on, you know, facts.
You can give the Democrats an A for effort though, heck they might genuinely hurt the war effort with the latest non binding resolution:
http://ispy.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/11/1018046-us-congress-labels-armenian-massacre-genocide-
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:02 pm
Actually, I think proceeding with that resolution is fairly retarded myself. It was 100 years ago, Armenia is an independent country at this point, what does it matter NOW. Yes, it probably was genocide, but WTF is it going to accomplish TODAY to place a label on a 100 year old atrocity that probably almost no one who was alive during the events is still alive today?
I'd much rather they spend their time raking the people of the administration who felt that torture was a viable tactic over the coals. Just because we say something isn't torture, doesn't make it so. The rest of the world certainly defines those methods as such, and funny how close some of those methods are to what was taken pictures of at Abu Gharib. Not so isolated, eh? Not to mention, the FBI was dead-set against those methods, saying over and over again that they were not useful, you got unreliable information, and that rapport building methods were far superior. But what would they know, they have only specialized in investigation and interrogation for the last what, 100 years? Think they might know something?
So yes, I feel indicting and trying the people who backed and approved such methods would be a FAR better use of Congress' time than pissing off one of our few staunch muslim allies.
-Arlos
I'd much rather they spend their time raking the people of the administration who felt that torture was a viable tactic over the coals. Just because we say something isn't torture, doesn't make it so. The rest of the world certainly defines those methods as such, and funny how close some of those methods are to what was taken pictures of at Abu Gharib. Not so isolated, eh? Not to mention, the FBI was dead-set against those methods, saying over and over again that they were not useful, you got unreliable information, and that rapport building methods were far superior. But what would they know, they have only specialized in investigation and interrogation for the last what, 100 years? Think they might know something?
So yes, I feel indicting and trying the people who backed and approved such methods would be a FAR better use of Congress' time than pissing off one of our few staunch muslim allies.
-Arlos
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:16 am
When Bush is responsible for as many civilian and military deaths as Johnson let me know, k?
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:12 am
well, I guess that depends on if you're holding him responsible for his lack of efficient response in situations that caused countless needless deaths. Or if you're counting the inevitable deaths that will come early for the 911 workers who were told the air was 'safe to breathe.' Whether he's the one who said that or not is neither here nor there, he sure didn't stop it from being released and allowing those folks to go unprotected. Or if you're counting the deaths of innocent civilians who aren't US citizens, but are dying as innocents nonetheless.
If you count those, I reckon he'd be pretty damn close.
If you count those, I reckon he'd be pretty damn close.
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:29 am
Yeah, ok, Gyps..
Vietnam:
compared to
Iraq..yeah, pretty darn close.
Even when you throw some of the blame off on Nixon (hey-remember he's the one that got us out not dragged us deeper in like our old pal LBJ) it still is nowhere fucking "close".
Look, I am as disgusted at Bush for this fucking mess as anyone else, but don't try dismissing this as some kind of "that dumb Bush, he did something no Democrat ever did" type of shit. He has made a mess of things royally. Captain Obvious doesn't need to come flying in and confirm this. He isn't, however, the worst at making royal messes. Let him lose about 53 THOUSAND more (or so) military lives and a few MILLION (or so) more civilian casualties then you might start talking that stupid shit, mmkay?
Vietnam:
Over 1.4 million military personal were killed in the war (approximately 6% were members of the United States armed forces), while civilian fatalities range from 2 to 5.1 million.
compared to
Concerning war-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs, Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000-150,000 Iraqis had been killed.[11] "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2006] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals – though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total."[12]
Los Angeles Times: "At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently"—as of June 2006. "Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths. ... The Los Angeles Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts."
Iraq..yeah, pretty darn close.
Even when you throw some of the blame off on Nixon (hey-remember he's the one that got us out not dragged us deeper in like our old pal LBJ) it still is nowhere fucking "close".
Look, I am as disgusted at Bush for this fucking mess as anyone else, but don't try dismissing this as some kind of "that dumb Bush, he did something no Democrat ever did" type of shit. He has made a mess of things royally. Captain Obvious doesn't need to come flying in and confirm this. He isn't, however, the worst at making royal messes. Let him lose about 53 THOUSAND more (or so) military lives and a few MILLION (or so) more civilian casualties then you might start talking that stupid shit, mmkay?
Re: Blackwater
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:18 am
The thing is though, this isn't over yet. LBJ was *terrible* don't get me wrong, talk about a pointless waste of time and people that was.. but that's all in retrospect, and that's going to be a little bit of shared blame. I'm not talking about just the war is the thing, though - it's not just the war that's cost us so many live needlessly.
Don't pass me off as some liberal - I wasn't liberal at all prior to the past 2 years; I was full on republican and voted pretty much nothing but that - Bush's reign and the events involved since have completely changed my views on the republican party. I wish I could take my vote for him back, though I'm sure Kerry wouldn't have done much better - he would've been just as bad I imagine, just in different ways.
At any rate, it shouldn't be a matter of 'who screwed up worse.' There's definitely no doubt that he's the worst president we've had in my lifetime, and the count of tragedy gets to a point where numbers start to blur, and any reputation that reaches this level should be lumped together as an atrocity and viewed in the same regard.
Don't pass me off as some liberal - I wasn't liberal at all prior to the past 2 years; I was full on republican and voted pretty much nothing but that - Bush's reign and the events involved since have completely changed my views on the republican party. I wish I could take my vote for him back, though I'm sure Kerry wouldn't have done much better - he would've been just as bad I imagine, just in different ways.
At any rate, it shouldn't be a matter of 'who screwed up worse.' There's definitely no doubt that he's the worst president we've had in my lifetime, and the count of tragedy gets to a point where numbers start to blur, and any reputation that reaches this level should be lumped together as an atrocity and viewed in the same regard.