The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Blackwater scares the shit out of me
Posts
For a company to be out of control they have to be attacking cities. There you have it. Penetrating insight. Fuck me I should have seen it earlier.
No one, as far as I know, has made that argument. The issue with Blackwater disarming US soldiers is that it is allowing a public corporation the ability to have supremacy over the federal government, which I find disturbing.
They brought their charge through a dangerous area, then were attacked, which, as the mercs are technically non-military personnel, caused the military to have to go in to protect American "civilians."
Did I say the Army shouldn't be allowed to fire at Blackwater ever? Are the infantry being charged for pointing weapons at blackwater or something? You're not making any sense, here. Blackwater must have reeeeally gotten the drop on whoever those guys were, and I wouldn't be surprised at an outbreak of fire if they hadn't. But to reiterate for the millionth fucking time, the army aren't special.
And who made the decision to attack? There's no law (Fuck me I hope there isn't) that says the Army has to attack a city if an American civilian is killed there.
Blackwater personnel ordered US troops to drop their weapons at gunpoint.
Fuck you for doing that to my quote.
I agree with Church here. The Fallujah counter was more a political move to please public outrage than anything else.
That's where the term "de facto" comes into play.
Blackwater lacks the forces to attack a city, but it is quite happy to take unreasonable actions under the assumption that the military will clean up their messes.
What does that even mean? Aren't special compared to who! Who are you talking about that should be more empowered than the Army!
Are you saying that if mercenaries pointed their rifles at US soldiers, and those same soldiers responded by opening fire, you wouldn't be here using that as an example of how US troops are a gang of trigger-happy malcontents?
No, Cat.
It's about the fact that these mercs boss around and make things worse for the US soldiers who SHOULD be in charge of them. For all their faults, at least our soldiers are under some sort of fucking law, which until recently, the same could NOT be said of Blackwater. That's the point. The fact that Blackwater mercs could disarm US soldiers, who are ostensibly the people charged with keeping the peace, is a massive sign that they thought themselves above the law.
So, you think those four men just walked right into danger thinking "It's okay guys, if we die, the Army will attack this city and that will somehow make the company look better!"
Doesn't this just show that the negligence of people within Blackwater has such a huge impact on peoples lives, that someone should be supervising?
No, it shows how the US armed forces made the decision to attack a hostile city, a decision that Blackwater had no input in.
No, the rout was picked by the people ordering those four around decided "okay, let's save some money on gas because iy won't be our problem if our guys get in trouble."
Let me spell it out for you: The mercs aren't the only group in Iraq with the potential to get in the way of the US army. There are also troops from dozens of other countries there too. They're all getting in the way of each other, but I don't see any reason to distinguish Blackwater on that basis. If, for example, a squad of US infantry were endangering an Australian mission, I'd expect my country's troops to protect themselves, even though we're allies. I don't see why Blackwater need to hold themselves to a higher standard than that.
Not really. They may have been negligent to their client, but that's about as far as it goes; they didn't force the military in. Now the thing in the House report (which I still urge people to please READ!) saying they violated their contract during their Fallujah trip, that is a different story.
Since when was it a practice not to go after people who kill American citizens? Unfortunately, pr and morale won't allow the military to ignore such provocations. Blackwater should have thought about that before sending people through an especially dangerous area.
And that's the government's problem since they were the ones who've allowed Blackwater to work in this area.
Because the various national militaries don't order each other around at gunpoint.
yeah, I'm done here. You all carry on fellating the army.
I object to private citizens having the authority to disregard military commands and force actions by military. From the articles posted already in this thread, there are examples where Blackwater forces refused to disarm upon entering the Green Zone, despite the fact that loaded and armed weapons aren't allowed within the perimiter of the Green Zone for obvious reasons.
The Newsweek article I referenced earlier stated that the Blackwater mercinaries smashed into a humvee and held the soldiers at gunpoint while they sorted out the car crash. A car accident? Really? Yes, there might have been a VIP with the mercinaries that they had to protect, but don't you think it's a little extreme to hold Army soldiers at gunpoint in the middle of the Green Zone over a car accident?
I guess I'm also going to have to go ahead and disagree with any inference that the regular military forces are poorly trained and unreliable (National Guard I'll give you... they shouldn't be overseas in a war zone in the first place). Yes, there's a lot of stress disorder going around over there (and rightfully so), and there have been a number of horrible and unfortunate incidents (as there are in any war), but these guys were treating American soldiers, who anwer ultimately to we, the people, like they were just schmoes on the street, or worse, terrorists. If a soldier has mental problems and is a threat to his associates or himself, there are regulations that will take him off the front lines (if properly implemented); if a Blackwater mercinary is cracking up, it might end up looking slightly unfavorable on his next performance review.
I don't think we can denegrate the entire army because of the horrible conditions that have been forced on them by the Bush administration.
So it's reasonable for a squad of US infantry to attempt to disarm an Aus squad, right? They have no way of knowing they can be trusted.
And then it's reasonable for the Aussies to resist and open fire on the Americans, right, because disarming someone at gunpoint is clearly a hostile action.
So we just had this firefight break out between allies for no reason and that's totally reasonable, and of course no one involved in this — who survives, anyway — should face any kind of military repercussions, because the whole thing was justified.
It sounds like this is what you're saying.
Oh please, get off that high horse if you're gonna beat it to death.
Soldiers are given preference here because they have a standardized body of training, a precise and documented ROE, an exactly defined chain of command that leads all the way up to the President, and, and this is important, a stringent justice system to deal with violations.
Mercs have none of this. That is the difference.
Because personal insults is the mark of a responsible moderator.
Why don't you try arguing the issue and name a case where the troops of one military used violence to coerce the members of another coalition member?
The secret service is granted special powers, putting them in the same category as the military police. I believe that would make the Blackwater troops vigilantes, just like if civilians tried to wield the powers of civilian police.
That's what he was saying :P
Always helps to be clear when around responsible moderators.
Well since you won't read this... :winky:
I apologize for all caricatures and oversimplifications I created of your arguments, Cat, and for the fact I'm a chauvinistic, militaristic, American pig; I really can't help being such a complete idiot, I have a genetic defect where my second X chromosome has mutated into a Y, sorry!:oops:
PS I
Hell, they have at least 30,000 armed personnel in the region. That's as much as our latest surge. Without them, we'd be back to pre-surge status. What then?
Cat, what makes you think Blackwater wouldn't pull guns on Aussie troops?
What makes you think she believes them any more infallable than Americans?
I think nothing of the sort. Are you trying to troll, or something? This isn't very clever.
Late on this, but I don't think the problem here is "the manliness of our infantry has been insulted."
Maybe it's just my position, but I don't like the idea of a mercenary group who's been given practical free reign over the Iraqi region, doesn't actually have to answer to any laws and has been proven untrustworthy having the ability to also outrank/hold up/disarm/etc. members of the US armed forces, who, even with their flaws, are still supposed to answer to the law, be it Army Law or Iraqi law.
In otherwords, I don't like them having that power because they've proven themselves to not be worthy of that trust
What the fuck?
Ever been in the forces? EDIT: Apparently not by your other posts. Well the very fact that you're a fcuking civvy jobag bespeaks a certain level of shallow-dimensionality and total lack of discipline if you ask me, so cock off. Watching Platoon and playing Call of Duty doesn't count. Twat.
Same difference. I do wish people who know fuck all about what actually happens on the ground would stfu.
Pretty easy call, isn't it? We need your calibre at DoD nexus!