Yep they hate us because we're rich and free [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Yep they hate us because we're rich and free


G19G20
04-07-2012, 02:43
Rich enough to buy big armored vehicles and free enough to drive over civilians and their vehicles without even worrying about stopping.

Video of Blackwater Contractors Driving Over Iraqi Woman - YouTube

This is why Paul's foreign policy makes sense. How many people in middle eastern countries do "We" (the military and foreign policy apparatus) aggravate or outright radicalize on any given day with this sort of stuff going on?

They hate us because we invade their countries, damage their property and kill their people. Let the flames begin.

G19G20
04-07-2012, 02:47
Btw, I'd hope that if the Chinese or the Koreans did this same thing in the US that Americans would be attacking China more than "terrorists" try to attack this country. We advocate attacking the crap out of any other country over a transgression but we sure don't act like we'd do the same if it happened to us on the receiving end. All of us would be together on a charter boat with rifles heading to China. Right?

eta: The traditional Republican foreign policy is constitutional non-intervention. My own Georgia raised Methodist Republican grandparents chastized my mother for working for the "war machine" Raytheon only as recent as the 1990's. They meant business because they supported non-intervention.

Skyhook
04-07-2012, 04:59
Troubling..

Is that well-fed commentator equating BlackWater's performance in two short videos to our troops' entire effort in Iraq?

:upeyes:

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 05:13
Just watched the first video. Do me a favor: point out the VBIED in traffic.
No?
Because I don't know which one it is either. Local traffic has been warned and warned and warned: Stay away from US vehicles. Any that approach are subject to security measures. And yes, they are real people. All of which are indistinguishable from the violent insurgency that they allow in their country.
Furthermore, private security wasn't there ti "liberate" anything. Private security was there to perform a very specific task which the US military was ill equipped to do.
Ok, justed watched the second vehicle. I'll ask if anyone that feels sympathy to explain how an ambush works.
If you'd like I can point out many, many places where females have been used to successfully smuggle explosives or actually detonated explosives on security forces. If you're too stupid to take note of the motorcade of black surburbans manuevering through traffic with sirens blowing and lights flashing, then expect Darwin to take effect at some point.
Loss of life is always regretable. But sometimes, necessary.

series1811
04-07-2012, 05:26
Goodness. I hope we are never in a war where combatants don't where uniforms, and where people trying to kill each other actually get hurt.

aircarver
04-07-2012, 06:10
In liberal utopia, wars are fought by throwing marshmallows .....:upeyes:

.

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2012, 06:26
Rich enough to buy big armored vehicles and free enough to drive over civilians and their vehicles without even worrying about stopping.

Video of Blackwater Contractors Driving Over Iraqi Woman - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN0udPRnd2M&feature=player_embedded)

This is why Paul's foreign policy makes sense. How many people in middle eastern countries do "We" (the military and foreign policy apparatus) aggravate or outright radicalize on any given day with this sort of stuff going on?

They hate us because we invade their countries, damage their property and kill their people. Let the flames begin.

Nice fairy tale you got there. Sort of proof that if you look hard enough for a reason to support what you want to believe, you'll find it. If you'll consider a bit of history pre-1985, and their religion, you might come up with a different cause and effect relationship. It's also possible that the punishment received by attacking us deterred radicalization.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1338/declining-muslim-support-for-bin-laden-suicide-bombing


War is ugly as ugly gets. But I don't thing we should have showered jihadists with hugs and kisses after 9-11, and having a few advisors in Saudi Arabia was not enough provocation to justify that attack, regardless of what Paul and the paulistinian peaceniks think. It's very surprising to see just how different cultures respond to stimul in ways that confuse Americans. Showing up on your lawn with a tank and telling you to behave might spark a revolution. In other places, it has a demonstrable calming effect.

Personally, I do not hate jihadists. I don't have any heartburn disrupting their plans by killing or capturing them either.

The Machinist
04-07-2012, 06:30
Loss of life is always regretable. But sometimes, necessary.
Necessary in order to prevent Iraq from launching all of those chemical weapons at the US mainland, right? Iraq was a travesty of stunning magnitude.

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2012, 06:36
Just watched the first video. Do me a favor: point out the VBIED in traffic.
No?
Because I don't know which one it is either. Local traffic has been warned and warned and warned: Stay away from US vehicles. Any that approach are subject to security measures. And yes, they are real people. All of which are indistinguishable from the violent insurgency that they allow in their country.
Furthermore, private security wasn't there ti "liberate" anything. Private security was there to perform a very specific task which the US military was ill equipped to do.
Ok, justed watched the second vehicle. I'll ask if anyone that feels sympathy to explain how an ambush works.
If you'd like I can point out many, many places where females have been used to successfully smuggle explosives or actually detonated explosives on security forces. If you're too stupid to take note of the motorcade of black surburbans manuevering through traffic with sirens blowing and lights flashing, then expect Darwin to take effect at some point.
Loss of life is always regretable. But sometimes, necessary.


I did notice there was a lack of video showing the contractors or their colleagues being ambushed, and the ambush starting by being stopped in traffic by vehicles and pedestrians.

Sucks, but if the OP were there, and had his own life at risk, and had barely escaped a few ambushes after being stopped, he might actually want to keep going. But why not show an ugly scene out of current and historical context and make sweeping declarations about the motivation of millions of people that he's never met or interacted with.


War is a tough business best left to those professionals with the physical and mental fortitude to Do the job. Tuesday morning quarterbacking from people who obviously don't understand what they are talking about must be tolerated in free speach loving country, but the logical missteps can still be pointed out to the ill informed.

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2012, 06:41
Necessary in order to prevent Iraq from launching all of those chemical weapons at the US mainland, right? Iraq was a travesty of stunning magnitude.

Just a hypothetical situation, but if the plan was to set a stage where jihadist minded military age males would flock to an area to attack a struggling American force, within easy driving distance, so we could kill them.......


Would that have worked if we announced it?

TheJ
04-07-2012, 06:51
I'm no convoy security expert but...

I'm going to guess that if convoys that would be a targeted can be stopped by one person stepping into the road, then they would be poorly protected convoys. So if people know they can bring a convoy to a halt so easily then they would waste no time using that to kill convoys. I'm quite confident that this lesson was probably learned the hard way.

The Machinist
04-07-2012, 06:52
Just a hypothetical situation, but if the plan was to set a stage where jihadist minded military age males would flock to an area to attack a struggling American force, within easy driving distance, so we could kill them.......


Would that have worked if we announced it?
I don't believe that was ever the plan. Not for a second. Supposing that were the real reason, however, then yes - it could have been announced openly. These jihadist vermin are like stupid animals that attack anything that moves. The outcome would have been the same.

Lethaltxn
04-07-2012, 08:00
Rich enough to buy big armored vehicles and free enough to drive over civilians and their vehicles without even worrying about stopping.

Video of Blackwater Contractors Driving Over Iraqi Woman - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN0udPRnd2M&feature=player_embedded)

This is why Paul's foreign policy makes sense. How many people in middle eastern countries do "We" (the military and foreign policy apparatus) aggravate or outright radicalize on any given day with this sort of stuff going on?

They hate us because we invade their countries, damage their property and kill their people. Let the flames begin.

How long were you over there?

Naelbis
04-07-2012, 09:00
Interestingly enough, rule number 1 for securing high value cargo or persons during transport is "You don't stop, EVER". Try blocking a nuke convoy here in the states and tell me how that goes for ya...

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 09:05
I'm all for the United States going to war to defend our national interests,
free oppressed people and even spread democracy.

I fully support both the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars.

But, the organization called Blackwater and it's employees are a disgrace
to America.

They did more harm in the Middle East than good.

..

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:14
Necessary in order to prevent Iraq from launching all of those chemical weapons at the US mainland, right? Iraq was a travesty of stunning magnitude.

Cute, but no.
Necessary to carry out a mission that our government directed done.
I'm not defending why we were there and I won't be sidelined by your attempt to do so.
You asserted a great deal, things I suspect you know nothing about.

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 09:18
This is why Paul's foreign policy makes sense.

They hate us because we invade their countries, damage their property and kill their people...

Using criminals (Blackwater) to promote and justify Ron Paul's foreign policy
is a real stretch of anyone's imagination.

It's also an insult to the vast majority of American armed forces who conducted
themselves properly and legally while in the Middle East.

Shame on you.:steamed:

..

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:19
I'm all for the United States going to war to defend our national interests,
free oppressed people and even spread democracy.

I fully support both the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars.

But, the organization called Blackwater and it's employees are a disgrace
to America.

They did more harm in the Middle East than good.

..

Oh really? By "fully" supporting it, then you should realize that there are certain ugly aspects to a war. "Smart" weapons have given people unrealistic expectations about warfare.
Did BW "disgrace" America by never failing a single mission? Is that what the disgrace was?
Did they "disgrace" our country by using almost the exact same tactics that the US military used?
Was that it?
Enlighten me, tell me how things work in Baghdad.

Here's some food for thought, where do Blackwater employees come from?

expatman
04-07-2012, 09:24
Do we know for sure this is a BW PSD element?

Is this like the old video that showed "BW" driving around shooting cars with a suppressed M4 only to find out it was a disgruntled Ageis contractor rather than BW?

Also, does anybody know the RUF/ROE and the GFR for Iraq in 2006?

Just curious.

teumessian_fox
04-07-2012, 09:24
Let the flames begin.

And that's your objective. Just another attention whore. Or perhaps the same recycled attention whore under a different screen name?

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:27
Do we know for sure this is a BW PSD element?

Is this like the old video that showed "BW" driving around shooting cars with a suppressed M4 only to find out it was a disgruntled Ageis contractor rather than BW?

Also, does anybody know the RUF/ROE and the GFR for Iraq in 2006?

Just curious.

Oh come on now! It's obviously Blackwater because....well, just because.
Everyone knows that Blackwater guys are evil and hate Iraqis and hate America and kick puppies.

expatman
04-07-2012, 09:30
I especially like the comment that all BW contractors are criminals. Even the ones that were never involved in anything such as the video posted above. Maybe even the ones whom shot in self defense are criminals as well. I wonder, do you still collect on your military retirement if you are a evil contractor criminal?

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:32
Well obviously they're criminals. I mean, look at their muscley arms and beards and tattoos.

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 09:35
Oh really? By "fully" supporting it, then you should realize that there are certain ugly aspects to a war. "Smart" weapons have given people unrealistic expectations about warfare.
Did BW "disgrace" America by never failing a single mission? Is that what the disgrace was?
Did they "disgrace" our country by using almost the exact same tactics that the US military used?
Was that it?
Enlighten me, tell me how things work in Baghdad.

Here's some food for thought, where do Blackwater employees come from?



You justify hitting an unarmed civilian and failing to stop and render aid.

You justify the shooting of unarmed civilians.

You justify the arrogant, demeaning and spiteful attitudes of Blackwater
employees toward the Iraqi civilians.

Yes war is hell and innocent people get killed, but the deaths of those innocent people should be by accident and NOT on purpose.

Destruction of personal property is inevitable, but it also should be by accident and unavoidable, NOT on purpose.

..

The Machinist
04-07-2012, 09:41
Cute, but no.
Necessary to carry out a mission that our government directed done.
I'm not defending why we were there and I won't be sidelined by your attempt to do so.
You asserted a great deal, things I suspect you know nothing about.
So unless I've run over civilians in the line of duty, I have no legitimate frame of reference from which to form an opinion?

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 09:43
Why has Blackwater changed its name, twice?

What are they running from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/ex-blackwater-firm-gets-a-name-change-again/2011/12/12/gIQAXf4YpO_blog.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484864,00.html

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:44
You justify hitting an unarmed civilian and failing to stop and render aid.

Yuuuuup, because if they stop to render first aid (to someone stupid enough to walk into the side of a convoy of moving vehicles) they open themselves up to attack. That would be retarded beyond compare.

You justify the shooting of unarmed civilians.

I'm sorry, I missed that part. Were those warning shots fired? Perhaps you have better eyes than I do.
At any rate, which of those guys were armed? Again, can you tell which ones should be approaching a marked convoy?
I sure can't.

You justify the arrogant, demeaning and spiteful attitudes of Blackwater
employees toward the Iraqi civilians.

I saw nothing but the exact same convoy tactics that have been used there for the last decade. By the US military. If you don't like it, feel free to write your congressman.

Yes war is hell and innocent people get killed, but the deaths of those innocent people should be by accident and NOT on purpose.

I keep waiting for you to answer any of the questions I've asked, but still nothing.
Not surprised.
Again I ask, who was innocent in that video?

Destruction of personal property is inevitable, but it also should be by accident and unavoidable, NOT on purpose.

Then I suggest they do what everyone knows to do and stay out of the way of a highly visible line of vehicles.

..

I'm not justifying anything to you. I'm simply telling you that is how things are done there. If you don't like it, change your vote 'round next election time.

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:45
Why has Blackwater changed its name, twice?

What are they running from?

The misperceptions of ignorant people.

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:48
So unless I've run over civilians in the line of duty, I have no legitimate frame of reference from which to form an opinion?

Unless you've been involved in an ambush or three initiated by "innocent" civilians or "civilian" vehicles, I'd say yes, you don't understand the way I do.
Furthermore, if you're stupid enuogh to walk into the side of a moving car...that's on you.

expatman
04-07-2012, 09:51
Why has Blackwater changed its name, twice?

What are they running from?

To be more accurate, they have been broken up. The site in Moyock, NC. is still there and operates as it always did as the U.S. Training Center or USTC.

The aviation branch was also its own subsidiary and was called Blackwater Air or Aviation. I think they sold off all their assets though so may not still be in existence.

They also had a security sub that I believe was sold off. You would have known them as Xe, more recently changed to Academi.

There was also a different security arm called Greystone. Not sure if they were a sub. or not or if not then which subsidiary they fell under.

Bottom line is Eric Prince left/sold his shares in the company and there has been some rearranging of ownership. I believe Ashcroft sit on the board now. But regardless, it is not the same company it once was.

That is the best I can explain it based on my knowledge of their situation. I am sure someone will come along with some sources that have been researched.

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 09:55
The misperceptions of ignorant people.

BlackWater Mercenaries Murdering Unarmed Civilians - YouTube


Guards in Blackwater Shooting May Face 30 Years - YouTube

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 09:57
Well so far no one has explained how the actions in the video were different or more aggressive than the US military.
No one has explained how all BW people are criminals.
No one seems to have told me where BW employees come from.
I haven't found out how BW "disgraced" anything.
Still waiting...


Having trouble typing, laughing too hard. You post up a video of Iraqis as some kind of evidence? Oh please, get real. Come back when you've got something meaningful to say.

So, who was convicted of a crime? Ha ha ha

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 10:05
Well so far no one has explained how the actions in the video were different or more aggressive than the US military.
.


Shame on you for trying to link honorable US servicemen and women with a bunch of lawless mercenaries.

As a whole the US military performed honorably and within the rules of conduct,
Blackwater did not.

The US military has not had to change it's name twice because of it's actions in Iraqi,
has it?

The US military was not pulled out of Iraq in disgrace, was it?

I would think you'd have more respect for America's fighting men and women
than to try and paint them in the same light as Blackwater.

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 10:08
Shame on you for trying to link honorable US servicemen and women with a bunch of lawless mercenaries.

As a whole the US military performed honorably and within the rules of conduct,
Blackwater did not.

The US military has not had to change it's name twice because of it's actions in Iraqi,
has it?

The US military was not pulled out of Iraq in disgrace, was it?

I would think you'd have more respect for America's fighting men and women
than to try and paint them in the same light as Blackwater.

Haah ahhaha, guy you're killing me.
Ok, here's the thing. Follow along:
Blackwater employees...are former (or Reserve) US MILITARY.

I swear, I kept hinting at it, thinking you would pick up....

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 10:26
Haah ahhaha, guy you're killing me.
Ok, here's the thing. Follow along:
Blackwater employees...are former (or Reserve) US MILITARY.

I swear, I kept hinting at it, thinking you would pick up....


That's got nothing to do with it.

Please don't link our military with Blackwater.:steamed:

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 10:37
That's got nothing to do with it.

Please don't link our military with Blackwater.:steamed:

It has everything to do with "it".

Look, I've agreed with some of your posts, disagreed with others. But I really don't understand if you're being serious now.

They are linked.

Where do you think those people come from? Do you think they recruit from 1-800-GET-THUGs? Many, many BW employees are decorated combat veterans, former police/SWAT officers, etc.

Just because you don't like what happens doesn't automatically make it, or the people involved, wrong.

Lethaltxn
04-07-2012, 11:14
I also think its difficult for people to rationalize what goes on over there. It's easy to armchair QB when you have the luxury of watching from the safety of your home.

Syclone538
04-07-2012, 11:51
I'm libertarian, a Ron Paul supporter, I don't think we should be there, and am not a fan of blackwater.

The "civilian" walked into the side of the truck.

Convoys shouldn't stop.

What's the problem?

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 11:52
I also think its difficult for people to rationalize what goes on over there. It's easy to armchair QB when you have the luxury of watching from the safety of your home.



True but Blackwater's record, and the actions taken to change their name
in order to distance themselves from that record, speaks volumes.

..

expatman
04-07-2012, 12:12
So, are we to asume that ALL/EVERY person that has ever worked for BW is a criminal?

alabaster
04-07-2012, 12:26
TheJ and JBnTX i think have this nailed. How many times did a convoy stop for one person and come under MASSIVE FIRE because of it?

Too, our intentions here were good(Our motives in question, really?! Did we benefit THAT MUCH from oil prices during these wars?! R U HIGH?!). Blackwater and the like are not a fair comparison to the bulk of our military forces.

One more thing. Have you ever been in a fight with your life on the line? Did you ever look evil in the face and have it tell you plainly that it would do EVERYTHING it could to destroy you and the people you love? Including sacrifice it's own women and children? No? Then how can you comment on what you would or wouldn't do in those circumstances? If yes, then how did you convince your human instincts to let bad things continue in hopes that someone would eventually come to their senses and see that you too are a human being and deserve to live?

TheJ
04-07-2012, 12:38
TheJ....

I think you misunderstood or confused my post with another's...

Perhaps I worded it poorly idk. I was saying that stopping convoys in a war zone because one person stepped in the road would obviously lead to the convoys being destroyed. And that has probably been learned the hard way..

So please amend your post to not include me.

MadMonkey
04-07-2012, 13:00
I also think its difficult for people to rationalize what goes on over there. It's easy to armchair QB when you have the luxury of watching from the safety of your home.

Yep. I've been called a lot of things by people who didn't realize who they were talking to :rofl:

Skyhook
04-07-2012, 13:31
Necessary in order to prevent Iraq from launching all of those chemical weapons at the US mainland, right? Iraq was a travesty of stunning magnitude.
Uh, huh. So now we are in the Obama war in Afghanistan... the one all Democrats screamed was THE one appropriate war... How's that working for ya? :eyebrow:

TactiCool
04-07-2012, 13:50
Shame on you for trying to link honorable US servicemen and women with a bunch of lawless mercenaries.

As a whole the US military performed honorably and within the rules of conduct,
Blackwater did not.

The US military has not had to change it's name twice because of it's actions in Iraqi,
has it?

The US military was not pulled out of Iraq in disgrace, was it?

I would think you'd have more respect for America's fighting men and women
than to try and paint them in the same light as Blackwater.

I personally know a few guys who have worked for Blackwater, and I can tell you that they are all good human beings of a high moral caliber. Many of them chose to work for Blackwater becuase they had retired from the military, but still wanted to serve, and they are all highly decorated servicemen.

Really though, it is erroneous to call these men mercenaries. They provide security and support for our troops and diplomats overseas. They are not over there soldiering. For that, try taking a look at companies like Executive Outcomes. They are true mercenaries and are not at all like what Blackwater was. For specific incidents, try taking a look at what EO did in Sierra Leone and Madagascar and you will see for yourself what true mercenaries do.

Please realize that the contractors overseas are helping to keep our troops safe. They are also not 'lawless.' In fact, they are held accountable to the federal government and also to military command.

expatman
04-07-2012, 14:04
I personally know a few guys who have worked for Blackwater, and I can tell you that they are all good human beings of a high moral caliber. Many of them chose to work for Blackwater becuase they had retired from the military, but still wanted to serve, and they are all highly decorated servicemen.

Really though, it is erroneous to call these men mercenaries. They provide security and support for our troops and diplomats overseas. They are not over there soldiering. For that, try taking a look at companies like Executive Outcomes. They are true mercenaries and are not at all like what Blackwater was. For specific incidents, try taking a look at what EO did in Sierra Leone and Madagascar and you will see for yourself what true mercenaries do.

Please realize that the contractors overseas are helping to keep our troops safe. They are also not 'lawless.' In fact, they are held accountable to the federal government and also to military command.

And also held accountable to the host country laws.



Thank you for pointing out the difference between mercenaries and Private Security Contractors.

TactiCool
04-07-2012, 14:19
And also held accountable to the host country laws.



Thank you for pointing out the difference between mercenaries and Private Security Contractors.

Whoops, can't believe I forgot about that one. I'll bet those pesky weapons permits and the fact that the Iraqi gov't doesn't allow PKM's on the roads anymore makes the job much harder, doesn't it? Not to mention those gosh-darn awful checkpoints.

Javelin
04-07-2012, 14:22
It's war.

When you declare it then you do it and don't ***** about the outcomes. Else stay out of it.

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 16:52
True but Blackwater's record, and the actions taken to change their name
in order to distance themselves from that record, speaks volumes.

..

Well, if you want to get technical, the US military has killed waaaaay more civvies than BW ever did.
Jus' sayin'.
Also, if they were doing such a bad job, why are they working in A-stan now?
Yeeeah. That's what I thought.

ancient_serpent
04-07-2012, 16:56
TheJ and JBnTX i think have this nailed. How many times did a convoy stop for one person and come under MASSIVE FIRE because of it?

Uhhh, how many times does it take before we stop letting it happen?

Too, our intentions here were good(Our motives in question, really?! Did we benefit THAT MUCH from oil prices during these wars?! R U HIGH?!). Blackwater and the like are not a fair comparison to the bulk of our military forces.

Hi, welcome to the conversation! We already established where BW folks came from, to wit, they are former military forces.

One more thing. Have you ever been in a fight with your life on the line? Did you ever look evil in the face and have it tell you plainly that it would do EVERYTHING it could to destroy you and the people you love? Including sacrifice it's own women and children? No? Then how can you comment on what you would or wouldn't do in those circumstances? If yes, then how did you convince your human instincts to let bad things continue in hopes that someone would eventually come to their senses and see that you too are a human being and deserve to live?

Huh?



See above.

cowboy1964
04-07-2012, 18:22
So why do they hate their own kind enough to gas them, stone them, etc?

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2012, 21:04
I don't believe that was ever the plan. Not for a second. Supposing that were the real reason, however, then yes - it could have been announced openly. These jihadist vermin are like stupid animals that attack anything that moves. The outcome would have been the same.

OK. You don't have to believe it.

Were you there?

I was. I met many on the other side that was killed and/or captured.

You are entitled to your uninformed opinion, and I am entitled to my informed opinion. Maybe at least one of us is right.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

callihan_44
04-07-2012, 22:15
the young turks is a bunch of american hating communist...BTW we rolled through areas going around other vehicles much in the same way police-fire-ambulances do here in the states. When you are operating in a populated area you risk getting rammed by someone with explosives packed in vehicles, you are a TARGET! You get in our way YOU WILL BE MOVED! never mind the potential for IEDs near heavily traveled roads you gotta keep moving...

certifiedfunds
04-07-2012, 22:39
OK. You don't have to believe it.

Were you there?

I was. I met many on the other side that was killed and/or captured.

You are entitled to your uninformed opinion, and I am entitled to my informed opinion. Maybe at least one of us is right.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Doc - how many that you encountered were high?

Big Mad Dawg
04-08-2012, 01:19
We can debate this subject forever but the truth is if you were there then you know what the conditions were and understand the tactics and why they were in place. If you were not there you are assuming what it was like and why we used the tactics we did but the bottom line is you are speaking from a point of ignorance. War is complicated both political and operational and sitting in America getting your news from others is not a good form of real time Intel you are very likely talking from ignorance sorry if that hurts but it is the truth.

JBnTX
04-08-2012, 01:59
War is complicated both political and operational and sitting in America getting your news from others is not a good form of real time Intel you are very likely talking from ignorance sorry if that hurts but it is the truth.

Are the congressional investigations "talking from ignorance"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/world/middleeast/04blackwater.html

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/23/blackwater-played-fast-and-loose-with-rules-report-says/


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2010/02/10-most-shocking-revelations-of-blackwater-south-park-controversy/25404/

NEOH212
04-08-2012, 03:31
It's war.

When you declare it then you do it and don't ***** about the outcomes. Else stay out of it.

Well put. :agree:

NEOH212
04-08-2012, 03:36
Oh man.....

There are far too many bleeding heart Liberals in here all trying to be civil about war again. :upeyes:

Here, I'll let you utopian hippy lib people in on a little secret about war.

You don't win a war by being civil and nice to the enemy!:steamed:

As soon as you and our leaders realize this and let our military do their job, we will get rid of the jerks causing the problems and everyone will be better off.

Friggen Liberals. SERIOUSLY! I can't believe this is what this once great nation is being reduced to. Grow a set or get out! :steamed:
:shakehead:

(Rant over.)

Your welcome. :wavey:

Bren
04-08-2012, 03:56
That's got nothing to do with it.

Please don't link our military with Blackwater.:steamed:

Blackwater and the other contractors work for/with our military and most of them come from our military. Who do you think hires them? Yes, some of them screw up, but I don't see any reason to be outraged about them. They are there doing a job we hired them to do and bringing a lot of expertise to it, whiler risking their lives.

Blackwater wasn't in Afghanistan when I was therem but I've worked with Paravant and MPRI contractrs and I was very glad to have them.

Bren
04-08-2012, 04:01
Necessary in order to prevent Iraq from launching all of those chemical weapons at the US mainland, right? Iraq was a travesty of stunning magnitude.

Yeah, because there's no way those people in the middle easy could actually hit us:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HLHbBHnOLOM/TmztXTckUBI/AAAAAAAAAGE/-LR4JBeE4uM/s1600/9-11-september-11-2001-photo-4-1x17jj1.jpg

If only all the generals had you to show them the error of their ways.

I don't believe that was ever the plan. Not for a second. Supposing that were the real reason, however, then yes - it could have been announced openly. These jihadist vermin are like stupid animals that attack anything that moves. The outcome would have been the same.

How would you know? Seriously, did you watch Band of Brothers for a military education? I may as well give an opinion on physics - at least I had a semester of actual education on the subject.

expatman
04-08-2012, 06:03
Blackwater and the other contractors work for/with our military and most of them come from our military. Who do you think hires them? Yes, some of them screw up, but I don't see any reason to be outraged about them. They are there doing a job we hired them to do and bringing a lot of expertise to it, whiler risking their lives.

Blackwater wasn't in Afghanistan when I was therem but I've worked with Paravant and MPRI contractrs and I was very glad to have them.

Paravant was another BW sub. that I left out of my earlier post by the way.

Cavalry Doc
04-08-2012, 06:10
I don't believe that was ever the plan. Not for a second. Supposing that were the real reason, however, then yes - it could have been announced openly. These jihadist vermin are like stupid animals that attack anything that moves. The outcome would have been the same.

Whether planned or not is debatable. But I can say with absolute certainty, that's what happened.

Cavalry Doc
04-08-2012, 06:22
Doc - how many that you encountered were high?

Bad guys? A few. Use of benzodiazepines like Valium was common for suicide bombers. Large piles of used needles and empty vials were found around battle sites. Most were pretty normal by the time they got to me, except for the freshly injured. Some had histrionic fits and breakdowns that would make you think they were on drugs.

Good guys? One drunk Philipine with a knife in the back is about all I can remember right now.

Gary W Trott
04-08-2012, 07:22
Just a hypothetical situation, but if the plan was to set a stage where jihadist minded military age males would flock to an area to attack a struggling American force, within easy driving distance, so we could kill them.......


Would that have worked if we announced it?
Probably.

Big Mad Dawg
04-08-2012, 11:33
Are the congressional investigations "talking from ignorance"?

I am sure there are examples of congressional investigators that collect accurate information and I am more than a little convinced that more often than not they are feed what the brass want them to know.

But then maybe I am a little jaded as I donít have much faith in any of our political leaders you may feel different.

ancient_serpent
04-08-2012, 11:49
I'm still waiting for answers to the questions I posed.
HuffPo does not begin to count as a legitimate source in this debate, neither does the NY Times. As for the last article, again, I ask: What convictions?
Are we simply attacking private security companies? I thought they were all criminals, right? Don't compare them to the military...oh, that's right, they are former military and police. Remember that? The people you hold in such high regard?
Yeah, it's the same people.
With "arguments" (and I use the term loosely) like these against private military companies, please continue. I hope everyone attacking them knows just as little about the middle east, tactics, techniques and proceedures.
Then, we could have a debate based completely off of emotion and popular sentiment.

expatman
04-08-2012, 11:53
ancient serpant,
Are you still OCONUS?

I have been back for about a month now. Are you in the same place that you were when we had the chat about where the U.S. Embassy was located versus the MOI?

ancient_serpent
04-08-2012, 11:58
Oh yes. Someone has to stick around.

certifiedfunds
04-08-2012, 14:35
Bad guys? A few. Use of benzodiazepines like Valium was common for suicide bombers. Large piles of used needles and empty vials were found around battle sites. Most were pretty normal by the time they got to me, except for the freshly injured. Some had histrionic fits and breakdowns that would make you think they were on drugs.

Good guys? One drunk Philipine with a knife in the back is about all I can remember right now.

was thinking of bad guys

G19G20
04-08-2012, 15:31
Yeah, because there's no way those people in the middle easy could actually hit us:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HLHbBHnOLOM/TmztXTckUBI/AAAAAAAAAGE/-LR4JBeE4uM/s1600/9-11-september-11-2001-photo-4-1x17jj1.jpg

If only all the generals had you to show them the error of their ways.



How would you know? Seriously, did you watch Band of Brothers for a military education? I may as well give an opinion on physics - at least I had a semester of actual education on the subject.

People are still trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq to justify an invasion based on pure lies? I really thought that old thing would have run it's course by now but I guess not.


You don't win a war by being civil and nice to the enemy!:steamed:


This is the problem. If you seriously consider every last person that lives in Iraq (or probably more accurate, every Muslim in the world) to be "the enemy" then it explains why we're still in all these countries 10 years later and trillions poorer as a nation. Can I assume that you're advocating killing every last Muslim on earth? Only then will the "enemy" be defeated, right?

the young turks is a bunch of american hating communist...BTW we rolled through areas going around other vehicles much in the same way police-fire-ambulances do here in the states. When you are operating in a populated area you risk getting rammed by someone with explosives packed in vehicles, you are a TARGET! You get in our way YOU WILL BE MOVED! never mind the potential for IEDs near heavily traveled roads you gotta keep moving...

Regardless of what you think about TYT, the video still speaks for itself. Comparing Blackwater with American EMS and Police is so absurd I won't even address that further. Think a little larger though. None of this occurs if we come home and stop meddling and creating enemies. It's a self fulfilling prophecy when our own gov't talks about killing terrorists then we watch videos of people basically CREATING those same terrorists by their actions. What better way to guarantee a never-ending supply of "terrorists" to kill? And here we are talking about getting militarily involved in Syria, Iran and others and yet we, as a country, still haven't learned that it doesn't work and only creates more enemies, costs more lives and more money that we don't have.

ancient_serpent
04-08-2012, 16:29
Bren clearly wrote "Yeah, because there's no way those people in the middle easy could actually hit us".
I mean, that's what I see there, maybe you're reading it different. Let me try again....nope, still the same.
You are simply being dishonest with your "rebuttal".
No one said that all Iraqis are the bad guys except you.
Lastly, it seems the video says different things to different people. To people that worked in Iraq or Afghanistan, it shows the ugly side of normal tactics.
To people that weren't there, they see...whatever it is you're seeing.

I eagerly await your next smear attempt. Please include as much appeal to emotion as you can.

juggy4711
04-08-2012, 18:33
...Can I assume that you're advocating killing every last Muslim on earth? Only then will the "enemy" be defeated, right?

To be blunt I believe that Old Testament style annihilation, or something close to it, is the only way to defeat an enemy that will not surrender and submit to a superior aggressor. That said, the idea of doing that does not sit well with me and likely not with most others.

So if we are not collectively willing to do what it may very well take to defeat the enemy, then what? Do we just keep fighting them forever, country after country, generation after generation?

As distasteful as I find the "kill them all" approach, I find it more distasteful to expend American lives at the expense of civility to the enemy and the coinciding contribution to bankrupting our nation and placing future generations of Americans under insurmountable debt.

I'm not going to say that Islamic terrorists pose no threat, or that the only reason they have to attack us is our bad foreign policy but we need to figure out a less costly approach to the fight.

As for how that approach might work, first thing first. We have to strive to end all US reliance on and presence in Muslim nations to eliminate their and others' perceived justifications for attacking us.

When we are attacked anyway we then unleash escalating levels on hell on offending nations and if that ends up requiring their total destruction so be it. At least we gave them no provocation perceived or otherwise.

Best case scenario, without the reasons they see as excuses and justification to attack others, Islam as a whole evolves into a mostly benign religion as Christianity has for the most part over the last few hundred years. Worst case it does not and eventually there are none of them left to be a problem.

I know it ain't pretty but nothing in history leads me to believe there is any other solution.

The Pakies are the greatest problem to be solved as they have nukes and could very well throw a wrench into the plan I laid out. They could easily threaten other nations with nuclear retaliation should we do as I proscribe. Unfortunately I have not reasoned out a way to eliminate that wrench. Same with Iran when they develop their own nukes.

More than likely the world will just have to survive India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran nuking each other and dealing with the fall out literally. And as long as the other nuclear powers stay out of it the world can likely survive such an exchange.

In the long run we either have a perpetual never ending state of warfare, or we suffer through some really devastating times to have a future where Pax Terra may be a reality. One thing I am certain of, peace throughout the world will not arrive through peaceful processes.

alabaster
04-08-2012, 18:52
I think you misunderstood or confused my post with another's...

So please amend your post to not include me.

TheJ, I must have mis spoken. I understood what you were saying, and I agree. If convoys are stopped they are too easy a target. I imagine we learned that in very short order. I did not mean to attack what you were saying, it made perfect sense to me.

As far as BW or other contractor employees being former military, I don't necessarily think that makes their judgement calls sound. I do think they've done far more good than bad and tat the news outlets would like us to believe otherwise. I just question some decisions... Like anyone else. Remeber John Kerry. He was military, and I wouldn't trust MOST of what he thinks, whether operational or otherwise

G19G20
04-08-2012, 19:32
Bren clearly wrote "Yeah, because there's no way those people in the middle easy could actually hit us".
I mean, that's what I see there, maybe you're reading it different. Let me try again....nope, still the same.
You are simply being dishonest with your "rebuttal".
No one said that all Iraqis are the bad guys except you.
Lastly, it seems the video says different things to different people. To people that worked in Iraq or Afghanistan, it shows the ugly side of normal tactics.
To people that weren't there, they see...whatever it is you're seeing.

I eagerly await your next smear attempt. Please include as much appeal to emotion as you can.

Bren quoted Machinist's post about the Iraq invasion and the non-existence chemical weapons with a reply that included a 9/11 reference and the real emotional appeal tactic of the WTC. Did you miss the quoted post? 9/11 was entirely unrelated to the Iraq invasion, yet some still try to draw some connection between the two, even after the very person behind the WMD accusation (Curveball) has admitted the story was fabricated. That's the facts. My post simply pointed out again that Iraq was unrelated to 9/11.

If you're going to occupy a country, you better be nice to the locals unless you want to create more enemies.

ancient_serpent
04-09-2012, 00:48
Bren quoted Machinist's post about the Iraq invasion and the non-existence chemical weapons with a reply that included a 9/11 reference and the real emotional appeal tactic of the WTC. Did you miss the quoted post? 9/11 was entirely unrelated to the Iraq invasion, yet some still try to draw some connection between the two, even after the very person behind the WMD accusation (Curveball) has admitted the story was fabricated. That's the facts. My post simply pointed out again that Iraq was unrelated to 9/11.

If you're going to occupy a country, you better be nice to the locals unless you want to create more enemies.

You are now trying a red herring style defense in which you try to divert attention from your previous statements and ignore the points made in mine.
This is not about being nice to locals. This is about you making uneducated statements on things you are cluless about and labeling (I could also say stereotyping) a group of former US service members.

As far as chemical weapons, that is a bald faced lie. I was here when chemical weapons were used on US forces. I know people that lost family members to Sa'adams chem weapons. Your ignorance insults and belittles their loss.
A little research will show that the Ba'ath party was stilla ctively pursuing WMD.

But again, that isn't what this is about.

You guys posted up a stupid video with some liberal news hack tht wouldn't know a IED from a AAR and you try to make some point with it.
You can't stand it that knowledgable people keep cutting your little assertations down and it's eating you up.
Here, I'll make it simple for you.

Premise: Blackwater has and continues to have work in support of US missions in middle eastern countries. Courtesy of the governemnt and the US taxpayer.

Premise: The tactics and proceedures used in your videos are exactly the same as used by the US military.

Premise: You do not have a problem with the US Military although they have engaged in much worse activity than the alleged activities of BW.

Conclusion: The problem is you and your agenda.

If I were using your argument technique, I would say:
"G19G20 and people like him are one of the main reasons why tactics like those shown in the videos are necessary. Their bleeding heart liberal, hand wringing lack of guts emboldens the enemy and made a simple invasion turn into an occupation that cost the lives of US military members and innocent local Iraqis."

See what I did there? Keep on topic.

G19G20
04-09-2012, 02:35
You are now trying a red herring style defense in which you try to divert attention from your previous statements and ignore the points made in mine.
This is not about being nice to locals. This is about you making uneducated statements on things you are cluless about and labeling (I could also say stereotyping) a group of former US service members.

The action speaks for itself. My commentary was based on the fallacy of "hate us for rich and free" when that video showed the likely creation of terrorists.

As far as chemical weapons, that is a bald faced lie. I was here when chemical weapons were used on US forces. I know people that lost family members to Sa'adams chem weapons. Your ignorance insults and belittles their loss.
A little research will show that the Ba'ath party was stilla ctively pursuing WMD.

Im going to need a source on this other than your words on an internet forum. Are we still talking about 2003? If you're really claiming this as fact in 2003 then you're CIA and probably violating your oaths. PMs are welcomed though :)


But again, that isn't what this is about.

You guys posted up a stupid video with some liberal news hack tht wouldn't know a IED from a AAR and you try to make some point with it.
You can't stand it that knowledgable people keep cutting your little assertations down and it's eating you up.
Here, I'll make it simple for you.

Premise: Blackwater has and continues to have work in support of US missions in middle eastern countries. Courtesy of the governemnt and the US taxpayer.

Premise: The tactics and proceedures used in your videos are exactly the same as used by the US military.

Premise: You do not have a problem with the US Military although they have engaged in much worse activity than the alleged activities of BW.

Conclusion: The problem is you and your agenda.

If I were using your argument technique, I would say:
"G19G20 and people like him are one of the main reasons why tactics like those shown in the videos are necessary. Their bleeding heart liberal, hand wringing lack of guts emboldens the enemy and made a simple invasion turn into an occupation that cost the lives of US military members and innocent local Iraqis."

See what I did there? Keep on topic.

So you work for Blackwater. The video shows what it shows and people will draw their own conclusions. Being anti MIC and all it brings doesnt make someone a liberal. If you think it is then you have no understanding of conservative conscience and history.

USMCSergeant
04-09-2012, 02:54
After 9-11 tragically happened, President Bush declared a war on terror. A broad war agreed, but supported nontheless by republicans and most democrats. In a speech just after the attacks he said:


"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Iraq made their decision. They provided a safe haven for terrorists. Some very famous ones actually. The Senate voted 77-23 and the House 296-133 to authorize OIF. Also the Senate voted 98-0 and the House 420-1 to authorize the AMUF.

We've been after Sadam for quite a while, early 90's at least. We've tried coups, baiting the citizens to rebel on the radio, and other ways. Intelligence insisted Iraq had or was attempting to make WMD's, Sadam refused to let the UN inspectors in. Time and time again he refused. This leads one to believe you're hiding something. After the invasion we never found Nuclear weapons or WMD's, but we relieved a population of a cruel dictator. That's not enough? Well we've sent troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia for humanitarian reasons. Do you openly disagree with all of those?

Iraq became a terrorist breeding ground after the invasion and since then we've been killing terrorists in rapid fashion. More so in the beginning before the rediculous ROE's, and people in places other than on the ground making decisions that really put our troops in bad situations.

To put the cost into perspective.. while both wars were ongoing. We spent more per month on social programs (welfare, disability..etc) than on BOTH wars in Afghan and Iraq COMBINED. All in all, taking all of this into account. I truly believe we've prevented further terrorist attacks on US soil. Many attacks. Maybe another 9/11. To me that is worth the financial cost, saving innocent American lives.

As for the original post, cruel things happen during war. It's war. Brutality is a part of it. No one likes to see women or children hurt, but when you declare war and the lead starts flying, unfortunate things will happen especially in populated places. Convoys cannot stop, that is rule #1 in a convoy. You can't stop to give aid. I heard the horns, the yelling, and the woman stepped right out in front of the vehicle. The guy in the video makes it out like the BW guys drove on a sidewalk and mowed down a civilian. In a city driving in those vehicles you become a target, as a target your best chance of survival is to be a moving target. The faster the better, especially while transporting high value personnel.

ancient_serpent
04-09-2012, 04:28
The action speaks for itself. My commentary was based on the fallacy of "hate us for rich and free" when that video showed the likely creation of terrorists.

Hate to break it to you but not many people like us there anyways. With the view that westerners are beneath them and a religion that some interpret as advocating violance against non-believers they really, really don't like us.
The "actions" on the video are the same as what the military does.
Explain why you post this video attacking private military companies and not the US military?
Explain why you labeled all contractors as criminals but you didn't do the same for the military? The same military, I might add, where these tactics were developed.


Im going to need a source on this other than your words on an internet forum. Are we still talking about 2003? If you're really claiming this as fact in 2003 then you're CIA and probably violating your oaths. PMs are welcomed though :)

If I were violating an oath, then I'd be sure to compund it by sending a PM on an internet forum.
Does that sound as stupid to you, as it does to me?
Plenty of open source information on the Ba'ath parties track record for using and desiring WMDs. If you want confirmation beyond what I said, then feel free to research it yourself; such a debate is not essential for the main conversation here.

So you work for Blackwater. The video shows what it shows and people will draw their own conclusions. Being anti MIC and all it brings doesnt make someone a liberal. If you think it is then you have no understanding of conservative conscience and history.

Actually being "anti MIC" smacks of being a conspiracy theorist. Type I errors and all that. Private Military Companies are not a new thing, nor are they what you have tried to portray them to be. They are an essential part of modern warfare.
And no, I do not work for BW.

Let me help you a bit. I think your message is getting dilluted.

Premise:
Premise:
Premise:
Therefore, _______(conclusion)__.

That ought to help us all understand your point about this.

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2012, 04:31
Probably.

We're going to have to disagree on that one. Not only because the enemy rarely will intentionally take part in YOUR plan to kill them willingly, but the bleeding heart peaceniks would have had a meltdown.

expatman
04-09-2012, 04:43
Here we go. Here are some sources for sarin and mustard gas in Iraq. I tried not to use repeated sources or events.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/11/iraq

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040701203743.9i07uh3m.html

http://www.wnd.com/2004/06/25285/

http://voices.yahoo.com/president-bush-was-right-weapons-mass-destruction-50492.html

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2012, 09:08
Don't forget the million plus pounds of yellow cake uranium.

They could have found 2 dozen suitcase nukes ready to go and the MSM would have found a way to "disqualify" them as WMD.

Mister_Beefy
04-09-2012, 10:09
Necessary in order to prevent Iraq from launching all of those chemical weapons at the US mainland, right? Iraq was a travesty of stunning magnitude.


you have accepted your programming very well.

The Machinist
04-09-2012, 13:16
you have accepted your programming very well.
I think you missed the sarcasm.

G19G20
04-09-2012, 13:43
Here we go. Here are some sources for sarin and mustard gas in Iraq. I tried not to use repeated sources or events.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/11/iraq

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040701203743.9i07uh3m.html

http://www.wnd.com/2004/06/25285/

http://voices.yahoo.com/president-bush-was-right-weapons-mass-destruction-50492.html

Here we go with this story again. These weren't used against US forces in 2003 that I'm aware of, hence why I claimed the other poster must be CIA or something if he's claiming this. The chemical weapons in those articles above weren't viable and were badly deteriorated and were actually given/sold to Saddam by the US Govt in the 80's. No wonder some claimed he had WMD. All they had to do was find the rusted out remains of what we gave him.

ancient_serpent
04-09-2012, 14:01
Explain why you post this video attacking private military companies and not the US military?
Explain why you labeled all contractors as criminals but you didn't do the same for the military? The same military, I might add, where these tactics were developed.

Premise:
Premise:
Premise:
Therefore, _______(conclusion)__.

That ought to help us all understand your point about this.

Just a reminder. Still waiting on your point to all of this...

expatman
04-09-2012, 17:23
OK so you move the goal post. I see now.
First you claim there were no WMD's. You are shown sources that there were. Then you say "But they were not viable". I suggest you do some research. One of those artillery rounds was used in an IED attack on some Marines. Some of those guys still suffer from the effects of the sarin gas. I am not sure how viable the gas itself was but it was indeed there and it did indeed get used against U.S. forces. I know it was not on a mass scale which is probably what you are getting at but you were wrong when you said that there were no WMD's.

G19G20
04-09-2012, 19:48
OK so you move the goal post. I see now.
First you claim there were no WMD's. You are shown sources that there were. Then you say "But they were not viable". I suggest you do some research. One of those artillery rounds was used in an IED attack on some Marines. Some of those guys still suffer from the effects of the sarin gas. I am not sure how viable the gas itself was but it was indeed there and it did indeed get used against U.S. forces. I know it was not on a mass scale which is probably what you are getting at but you were wrong when you said that there were no WMD's.

Everybody knew there was old mustard gas laying around from the 80's, since we gave it to him and that was public record all along. That's a big ass difference from Colin Powell showing photos of "chemical weapons factories", "mobile labs" and "uranium yellowcake" shipments and the rest of the nonsense put forth as the justification for the Iraq invasion. No one was talking about some rusted out canisters in a dark dusty bunker somewhere.

Im still waiting on a source for the allegation that chemical weapons were used against US troops in 2003. Help me out with that research. Everything I've read says the small amount of 80's chemical weapons found were inoperable and generally worthless as weapons. The thing is, it's always omitted that the stuff he used on the Kurds was sourced directly from the US gov't. If you truly believe that these old chems were a genuine threat to the US then it's just another example of how meddling comes back to haunt us )(blowback) and we need to stop doing it.

G19G20
04-09-2012, 19:55
Explain why you post this video attacking private military companies and not the US military?
Explain why you labeled all contractors as criminals but you didn't do the same for the military? The same military, I might add, where these tactics were developed.

Premise:
Premise:
Premise:
Therefore, _______(conclusion)__.

That ought to help us all understand your point about this.

Just a reminder. Still waiting on your point to all of this...

Do you think those people just going about their day know or care the difference between Blackwater and active US military? They don't. They just know it's Americans occupying their country, damaging their property and killing their people. The technical labels of this group or that means nothing to them. Then we wonder why terrorism exists and why there's never a shortage of terrorists. Like I said earlier in this thread, we would be reacting the same way if it happened here. Where exactly did I call anyone a criminal? I think you're merging JBnTX and my posts together....

JBnTX
04-09-2012, 21:24
Explain why you post this video attacking private military companies and not the US military?
Explain why you labeled all contractors as criminals but you didn't do the same for the military? The same military, I might add, where these tactics were developed.

Premise:
Premise:
Premise:
Therefore, _______(conclusion)__.

That ought to help us all understand your point about this.

Just a reminder. Still waiting on your point to all of this...


If you're talking to me:

I called the Blackwater company that killed innocent civilians criminals.
They are. Several investigations have proven it.

I did not mention any other contract employees of any company..
You did that.

I've tried to separate the conduct of those Blackwater people
from our honorable military servicemen and women.
You're the one who made that connection, not me.

You're the only one who's tried to expand this to include all
contract employees and all US military.

So if anyone needs to explain anything, it's you.

Re-read my posts in this thread and you'll see that I've asked you several
times NOT to link Blackwater's conduct to our military.

And now, I ask you again not to do it.

..

ancient_serpent
04-09-2012, 22:16
Do you think those people just going about their day know or care the difference between Blackwater and active US military? They don't. They just know it's Americans occupying their country, damaging their property and killing their people. The technical labels of this group or that means nothing to them. Then we wonder why terrorism exists and why there's never a shortage of terrorists. Like I said earlier in this thread, we would be reacting the same way if it happened here. Where exactly did I call anyone a criminal? I think you're merging JBnTX and my posts together....

Actually, yes they do know the difference. They even knew which military units were where. BW wears civilian clothing, the other bright grey ACUs. BW drives civilian vehicles by and large. The military drives the big tan colored armored vehicles.
And no, we wouldn't be "reacting the same way" because we would not allow foreign fighters to come in frmo Mexico and Canada and wage an insurrection against an occupying force in our country. We wouldn't attach suicide vests to mentally disabled women, we wouldn't force innocent people to drive SVBIEDs into US convoys.
I'm asking you if there is a point to listing this video besides "war is bad".
If you'd like I could always call up a couple of my Iraqi buddies and ask them to comment on this. They sure know the difference.

If you're talking to me:

I called the Blackwater company that killed innocent civilians criminals.
They are. Several investigations have proven it.

Please provide an explanation of how this differs in any way frmo the US military tactics.
You cannot do it because it it exactly the same.

I did not mention any other contract employees of any company..
You did that.

What you specifically said was: "But, the organization called Blackwater and it's employees are a disgrace
to America. "
My comments are about BW and the US military.

I've tried to separate the conduct of those Blackwater people
from our honorable military servicemen and women.
You're the one who made that connection, not me.

You're the one that understands so little that even after you failed to tell me where BW employees come from, that you still try to separate the two organizations.
Yes, i made the connection because there is one.

You're the only one who's tried to expand this to include all
contract employees and all US military.

My comments are specifically about BW and the US military. It includes the US military because the tactics come straight from there, by and large.

So if anyone needs to explain anything, it's you.

Re-read my posts in this thread and you'll see that I've asked you several
times NOT to link Blackwater's conduct to our military.

And now, I ask you again not to do it.

Are you reading what I'm writing? BW TACTICS AND EMPLOYEES COME FROM AND ARE TRAINED BY THE US MILITARY.

..

You, I am trying to figure out your point. I even went through the trouble to type out those handy premise/conclusion blocks to help...

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 05:41
Here we go with this story again. These weren't used against US forces in 2003 that I'm aware of, hence why I claimed the other poster must be CIA or something if he's claiming this. The chemical weapons in those articles above weren't viable and were badly deteriorated and were actually given/sold to Saddam by the US Govt in the 80's. No wonder some claimed he had WMD. All they had to do was find the rusted out remains of what we gave him.

They were present, they were used against US troops in IED's.

It's pretty simple, are they WMD, we're they there, did we find them?


If you could point a finger at the guy MOST responsible for the world believing Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, who would that be?

expatman
04-10-2012, 06:16
G19G20,
You spoke of "nonexistant chemical weapons". I simply attempted to show where you were mistaken.

Skyhook
04-10-2012, 06:38
They were present, they were used against US troops in IED's.

It's pretty simple, are they WMD, we're they there, did we find them?


If you could point a finger at the guy MOST responsible for the world believing Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, who would that be?


Just how many weeks would it have taken for a powerful dictator to shuttle WMDs out of his country into the arms of his neighbors or into some remote section of desert?

How many weeks did we diddle away while messing with 'diplomacy' and the <ahem> UN? :eyebrow:

Ans to ques.. William Jefferson What's His Name or was it John Kerry? Tough one.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 08:38
Just how many weeks would it have taken for a powerful dictator to shuttle WMDs out of his country into the arms of his neighbors or into some remote section of desert?

How many weeks did we diddle away while messing with 'diplomacy' and the <ahem> UN? :eyebrow:

Ans to ques.. William Jefferson What's His Name or was it John Kerry? Tough one.

I blame Saddam. That guy should probably be hanged.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 08:39
G19G20,
You spoke of "nonexistant chemical weapons". I simply attempted to show where you were mistaken.

It's been shown, no amount of evidence will convince the "Bush lied, people died" crowd.

G19G20
04-10-2012, 09:38
G19G20,
You spoke of "nonexistant chemical weapons". I simply attempted to show where you were mistaken.

That's fine but anyone aware of the actual history knows I meant the claims of Powell, Rice, and the media in the lead up to the invasion. But if you want to get technical, a few rusted out cans from the 80's arent even "weapons" anymore. You can actually use a weapon. Is a rusted out AR that's missing the barrel still a "weapon"? Not in my book.

I still want to see a source that claims chemical weapons use in Iraq in 2003. Depleted uranium rounds by our forces don't count, btw.

I'm asking you if there is a point to listing this video besides "war is bad".

I guess at the most basic level, no that is the point. The video is just another example of why meddling in the affairs of other countries causes more problems than it solves and we're creating just as many terrorists as we're killing with this stuff. Undeclared wars with no defined enemy in countries that didn't directly threaten or attack us don't work and you'd think we'd have learned this from the failed adventures of other empires in the same region (see Britain, Ottomans, Soviets, etc). They don't end either....until the empire is broke and forced to leave.

Skyhook
04-10-2012, 09:49
I blame Saddam. That guy should probably be hanged.

:shocked:






:supergrin:

G19G20
04-10-2012, 09:56
:shocked:






:supergrin:

How dare he actually use what we gave him. String him up!

expatman
04-10-2012, 10:23
Here is an example of a sarin gas round being used against U.S, troops. It was not effective at the time. The fact remains that it was used and did exist regardless of who gave it to them or manufactured it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/

Let us remember. It was Saddams responsibility to disclose the status of ALL of his chemical weapons to stay in accordance with his agreement at the end of the first gulf war. He could not/would not disclose the disposition of those weapons. In fact, he led the world to believe that he had this capabilities. He may of lied about this in order to keep his enemies at bay (USA, Iran, Local rebels). Either way, it ends up his fault if the world believed him and acted accordingly.

My apologies to the OP for the thread being veered off of its original topic of evil contractors.

Skyhook
04-10-2012, 10:24
How dare he actually use what we gave him. String him up!

Yes.

He was to use them to knock out the wild-adzed Iranians, remember? Jimmy Carter set the whole thing up by being irresolute and/or incapably flaccid in his dealings with a then small group of students.

http://www.rense.com/general32/we.htm

Carter and Hussein set the entire ball game to motion.

expatman
04-10-2012, 10:26
How dare he actually use what we gave him. String him up!

I agree with you.

He should have been strung up. He lost the first war and agreed to get rid of all of those weapons but clearly did not.

G19G20
04-10-2012, 11:48
Here is an example of a sarin gas round being used against U.S, troops. It was not effective at the time. The fact remains that it was used and did exist regardless of who gave it to them or manufactured it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/

Let us remember. It was Saddams responsibility to disclose the status of ALL of his chemical weapons to stay in accordance with his agreement at the end of the first gulf war. He could not/would not disclose the disposition of those weapons. In fact, he led the world to believe that he had this capabilities. He may of lied about this in order to keep his enemies at bay (USA, Iran, Local rebels). Either way, it ends up his fault if the world believed him and acted accordingly.

My apologies to the OP for the thread being veered off of its original topic of evil contractors.

So again we're talking about the left over and inoperable 80's stuff that was never the claimed basis of the invasion in the first place.

Interesting passage in the article here:

Field-test results could be in error
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and more analysis needed to be done. “We have to be careful,” he told an audience in Washington Monday afternoon.
Rumsfeld said it may take some time to determine precisely what the chemical was.

Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn’t know it contained the nerve agent.

.........
“The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece,” he said, adding that dispersing the substance from a device such as the homemade bomb "is virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon."

........
But Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery does not provide evidence that Saddam was secretly producing weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, as alleged by the Bush administration to justify the war that removed him from power.



I guess if construed in a light most positive to your allegations, this could possibly be considered "using chemical weapons against US troops" but that's getting pretty desperate since even the experts in that article say it didn't match what was claimed as the invasion justification and wasnt an operable weapon.

expatman
04-10-2012, 11:55
Not desperate at all really. At least not considering all the other sources citing the discovery of various chemical weapons found. We were lucky that this one did not work properly. Don't get mad at me. You asked for proof of WMDs and I provided some sources for you. You may not agree that they were in relevant quantities but as I stated, they were there.

I wonder how many we missed. I wonder if Saddam was able to sneak some away to other countries.

And by the way. I never claimed that we based our invasion over these few weapons. As I said, you asked for proof/sources and I provided them.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 12:36
How dare he actually use what we gave him. String him up!

I know in your mind we gave Iraq chemical weapons. I don't believe that is as simply stated as you are pretending. Here is a pretty good analysis. Try to keep an open mind as you read that.
http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2007/01/where-did-saddam-get-his-chemical.html?m=1

In someone as young as you are, it's difficult to explain how the timeframe something happens is important. 1985 was much different than 1990. 1995 was much different than 2003.

In 1991, we stopped short of toppling saddams regime and entered into an agreement that he repeatedly violated. He made the now obvious mistake of bluffing the world into thinking he had WMD, and acting like a badass with us after 9-11, from a strategically opportune piece of real estate.

Most of us that were there saw the reasons for us being there. It's really not necessary for you to agree, as your approval was not needed.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 12:51
That's fine but anyone aware of the actual history knows I meant the claims of Powell, Rice, and the media in the lead up to the invasion. But if you want to get technical, a few rusted out cans from the 80's arent even "weapons" anymore. You can actually use a weapon. Is a rusted out AR that's missing the barrel still a "weapon"? Not in my book.

I still want to see a source that claims chemical weapons use in Iraq in 2003. Depleted uranium rounds by our forces don't count, btw.



I guess at the most basic level, no that is the point. The video is just another example of why meddling in the affairs of other countries causes more problems than it solves and we're creating just as many terrorists as we're killing with this stuff. Undeclared wars with no defined enemy in countries that didn't directly threaten or attack us don't work and you'd think we'd have learned this from the failed adventures of other empires in the same region (see Britain, Ottomans, Soviets, etc). They don't end either....until the empire is broke and forced to leave.

You are misinformed. Chemical weapons and nuclear precursors were present.

But really, there were numerous reason for the war, not just the one you are stuck on misrepresenting. WMD were found, and used against American forces. If they are harmless, perhaps we could have 5 or 6 of them burried 3 inches deep in your back yard?

It's obvious that you have made up your mind on the WMD, and that you think it's all the Bush's fault. Just so you can't pretend that most everyone else didn't think he had them, watch this.
Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War - YouTube

Now,there were a few other reasons given.

If you want to reacquaint yourself with a bit of history, which would lead to a better understanding, look here: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

G19G20
04-10-2012, 14:37
Why would I care what Joe Biden or Bill Clinton thinks? Showing me a bunch of establishment politicians saying the same (wrong) things doesn't prove anything. I don't believe what -any- establishment politician says, regardless of the letter next to their name. All I read in that link is fear-mongering with little to no basis in reality from a bunch of politicians that -all- benefit from war machine campaign donations and influence from certain foreign interests.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 14:39
Why would I care what Joe Biden or Bill Clinton thinks? Showing me a bunch of establishment politicians saying the same (wrong) things doesn't prove anything. I don't believe what -any- establishment politician says, regardless of the letter next to their name. All I read in that link is fear-mongering with little to no basis in reality from a bunch of politicians that -all- benefit from war machine campaign donations and influence from certain foreign interests.

You can lead a horse to water...

G19G20
04-10-2012, 14:50
I know in your mind we gave Iraq chemical weapons. I don't believe that is as simply stated as you are pretending. Here is a pretty good analysis. Try to keep an open mind as you read that.
http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2007/01/where-did-saddam-get-his-chemical.html?m=1

In someone as young as you are, it's difficult to explain how the timeframe something happens is important. 1985 was much different than 1990. 1995 was much different than 2003.

In 1991, we stopped short of toppling saddams regime and entered into an agreement that he repeatedly violated. He made the now obvious mistake of bluffing the world into thinking he had WMD, and acting like a badass with us after 9-11, from a strategically opportune piece of real estate.

Most of us that were there saw the reasons for us being there. It's really not necessary for you to agree, as your approval was not needed.

(Ignoring the fact that lightly referenced blog posts that rely mostly on Wiki entries aren't usually considered proof.)

The link claims that the US and other countries provided chemical weapons, precursors and equipment in the 80's. I don't see your point. That link doesn't exonerate anyone. In fact, it's even more embarrassing to realize that many of those countries were the same ones that joined the "coalition of the willing".

Once again, if the very existence of -any- chemical weapons program in Iraq was the justification for invasion then it really only proves why meddling comes back to haunt us later. It always does. And that was the basis for this thread in the first place.

You can lead a horse to water...

Yeah but you can't make him drink the Kool-aid.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 16:53
(Ignoring the fact that lightly referenced blog posts that rely mostly on Wiki entries aren't usually considered proof.)

The link claims that the US and other countries provided chemical weapons, precursors and equipment in the 80's. I don't see your point. That link doesn't exonerate anyone. In fact, it's even more embarrassing to realize that many of those countries were the same ones that joined the "coalition of the willing".

Once again, if the very existence of -any- chemical weapons program in Iraq was the justification for invasion then it really only proves why meddling comes back to haunt us later. It always does. And that was the basis for this thread in the first place.



Yeah but you can't make him drink the Kool-aid.


I thought you paulistinians were free market dudes. You implied that we (The USA) sold them chemical weapons. Name one. There were chemicals that could be used as precursors to chemical weapons sold (free market?). Maybe you have a link to show a copy of the receipt for some chemical weapons we sold them? Maybe not. I'm thinking not.

The initial charge was yours. Maybe you can support it, or maybe not. I'm thinking.....

Anyway, times change. We sell stuff to those that our friends today. There is no guarantee that they will be our friends tomorrow. That's the way life really works, as opposed to how we would probably like it to work.

The article also shows that since about the mid-80's, Iraq went out of it's way to become self sufficient in making WMD.

Fact is, WMD were there. We found some. That is well documented. Old, new, shiny or rusty is irrelevant to the cease fire agreement. The inspectors were kicked out. Another violation. And, in a post 9-11 world, I don't blame the USA leadership for being a little less tolerant of Saddam than they were in the pre 9-11 world. Stuff happens.

WMD was only one of the reasons given for the invasion. They were there, maybe not in the numbers we (and every other nation) believed were there, but that was not the only reason for the invasion.

The good news in all of this, is that you were no where in the decision making process. No offense, but you just don't seem to have a good grasp on what war is about. It's ugly, messy, and very hard on the people where it is happening. That teaches a lesson. The harder you fight them, the longer the peace. Germany and Japan are pretty good examples of that. As the war progressed, polls showed decreasing support for OBL and terrorism in many countries around the world.

So, bottom line, a bunch of people here who actually work in the field of discussion agree with us going, and you don't. Oh well, we'll just have to live with your disapproval.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-1.gif

DaveG
04-10-2012, 16:59
In liberal utopia, wars are fought by throwing marshmallows .....:upeyes:

.
...and Sept 11th never happened either... :steamed:

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 17:04
...and Sept 11th never happened either... :steamed:

It happened, but according to them, it was our fault. :steamed:

FPS
04-10-2012, 17:44
That lady shouldn't have walked directly into oncoming traffic. WTF?

.

G19G20
04-10-2012, 18:05
I thought you paulistinians were free market dudes. You implied that we (The USA) sold them chemical weapons. Name one. There were chemicals that could be used as precursors to chemical weapons sold (free market?). Maybe you have a link to show a copy of the receipt for some chemical weapons we sold them? Maybe not. I'm thinking not.

Sure, Im for the free market. However, I wouldn't support the US gov't facilitating a rifle sale to you, then arresting you as a threat to society because you own a gun.

Here's a couple nice counter articles about US gov't involvement in Iraqi weapons sales:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/10/10/iraq-and-chemical-weapons-the-us-connection/

http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

Heck of an article here on DIRECT CONFIRMED US Govt ties with Iraq's chemical and bio weapons programs, among many other revelations.
http://murraywaas.net/id31.html

Funny how the same people keep coming up over and over like Rumsfeld.


The initial charge was yours. Maybe you can support it, or maybe not. I'm thinking.....

That murray article above lays it all out better than I possible can.


Anyway, times change. We sell stuff to those that our friends today. There is no guarantee that they will be our friends tomorrow. That's the way life really works, as opposed to how we would probably like it to work.

The article also shows that since about the mid-80's, Iraq went out of it's way to become self sufficient in making WMD.

And it shows why our meddling always comes back to haunt us. Why keep doing the same stupidity over and over while expecting different results?


Fact is, WMD were there. We found some. That is well documented. Old, new, shiny or rusty is irrelevant to the cease fire agreement. The inspectors were kicked out. Another violation. And, in a post 9-11 world, I don't blame the USA leadership for being a little less tolerant of Saddam than they were in the pre 9-11 world. Stuff happens.

WMD was only one of the reasons given for the invasion. They were there, maybe not in the numbers we (and every other nation) believed were there, but that was not the only reason for the invasion.

You make a valid point about kicking the UN out and various "resolutions" but that's not justification for a war of aggression. You can watch the UN address again if you need a refresher about "mobile labs", "weapons factories" and other lies:
General Colin Powell UN Speech on Iraq Part 1of5 - YouTube

ETA: Can somebody...anybody...tell me who those guys sitting right behind Powell are? I sure didn't elect them and I don't see them giving press conferences or speeches to Americans. Those would be Powell's main men during that address but who are they???


The good news in all of this, is that you were no where in the decision making process. No offense, but you just don't seem to have a good grasp on what war is about. It's ugly, messy, and very hard on the people where it is happening. That teaches a lesson. The harder you fight them, the longer the peace. Germany and Japan are pretty good examples of that. As the war progressed, polls showed decreasing support for OBL and terrorism in many countries around the world.

It's also EXTREMELY profitable to arms dealers, politicians, and banks. That's what war is about. It's also why this country is BROKE now. It really sucks that I didn't get to put my stamp of approval on spending trillions and losing thousands of Americans lives for nothing. Yeah I really regret not having a hand in that. Fortunately, wise folks like yourself are around to send other people's kids off to die in countries that never so much as uttered a threat against us.


So, bottom line, a bunch of people here who actually work in the field of discussion agree with us going, and you don't. Oh well, we'll just have to live with your disapproval.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-1.gif

No kidding? People that were getting a slice of the pie agree with getting their slice? Who would have thought...

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 09:22
:rofl: I guess it's a matter of perspective. I thought of it as service to my country, doing hard things others could or would not do. There is no requirement for you to appreciate that though.

We are talking about events that are in the past. With or without your understanding, it's water under the bridge.

Have a nice day.

Goaltender66
04-11-2012, 10:48
General Colin Powell UN Speech on Iraq Part 1of5 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5RZ6ukbNc)

ETA: Can somebody...anybody...tell me who those guys sitting right behind Powell are? I sure didn't elect them and I don't see them giving press conferences or speeches to Americans. Those would be Powell's main men during that address but who are they???

What does their being elected have to do with anything?!

On Powell's right is George Tenet, CIA director as of Feb-2003 (when the address was given). On Powell's left is John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN at the time.

Not sure how George Tenet would be considered Powell's "main man" but whatever.

hamster
04-11-2012, 10:59
You are misinformed. Chemical weapons and nuclear precursors were present.

http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/images/0609/toh/image002.jpg

Skyhook
04-11-2012, 12:20
What does their being elected have to do with anything?!

On Powell's right is George Tenet, CIA director as of Feb-2003 (when the address was given). On Powell's left is John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN at the time.

Not sure how George Tenet would be considered Powell's "main man" but whatever.


Elected or not elected.. that seemed to really matter to BHO when he tried to make the SCOTUS irrelevant.

Of course... BHO's opinions may be irrelevant. :supergrin::wavey:

G19G20
04-11-2012, 13:27
What does their being elected have to do with anything?!

On Powell's right is George Tenet, CIA director as of Feb-2003 (when the address was given). On Powell's left is John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN at the time.

Not sure how George Tenet would be considered Powell's "main man" but whatever.

Thanks for the answer. The men sitting behind Powell are always the "go-to" guys (main men) when questions arise or Powell would be about to say too much. Odds are those are the gentlemen feeding Powell the info. You see the same stuff during congressional hearings and the like.

Goaltender66
04-11-2012, 13:49
Thanks for the answer. The men sitting behind Powell are always the "go-to" guys (main men) when questions arise or Powell would be about to say too much. Odds are those are the gentlemen feeding Powell the info. You see the same stuff during congressional hearings and the like.

Then I'm not sure I understand your comment about them not being elected.

And as for them being present...it would be odd if the DCI (who, actually, didn't work for the SecState, just as the DNI doesn't now) wasn't there, and our Ambassador to the UN wasn't invited. There is such a thing as diplomatic optics, after all. Not having Negroponte there would have undermined his credibility at the UN.

Just curious...do you remember any of this contemporaneously?

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 17:47
http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/images/0609/toh/image002.jpg

Well, I signed scores of post deployment screening forms for engineers, that I completed in Iraq, that loaded up all the yellow cake uranium, over a million pounds of it, for shipment out of Iraq in 2004.

Can you find a cartoon about that funny guy?

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 17:49
Then I'm not sure I understand your comment about them not being elected.

And as for them being present...it would be odd if the DCI (who, actually, didn't work for the SecState, just as the DNI doesn't now) wasn't there, and our Ambassador to the UN wasn't invited. There is such a thing as diplomatic optics, after all. Not having Negroponte there would have undermined his credibility at the UN.

Just curious...do you remember any of this contemporaneously?

I'm thinking he was in Elementary school when that briefing was given. What do you think?

Goaltender66
04-11-2012, 18:21
I'm thinking he was in Elementary school when that briefing was given. What do you think?

You may be right. It's very misleading to look at a single point in a vacuum. When you're there, knowing the context and totality of the fact environment at the time, things make sense. I think you said this earlier in the thread.

I'm still not understanding what the point of asking why the DCI and UN Ambassador aren't elected.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

USMCSergeant
04-11-2012, 23:45
.... blah blah ...Undeclared wars with no defined enemy in countries.. blah blah

The Senate voted 77-23 and the House 296-133 to authorize OIF, that would be a declaration.

Also, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House 420-1 to authorize the AMUF which gives the president the power to declare war without requiring their approval. So would you STILL say it was/is an undeclared war? I usually hear that argument from liberals reciting what they heard on TV.

juggy4711
04-12-2012, 00:01
The Senate voted 77-23 and the House 296-133 to authorize OIF, that would be a declaration.

Also, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House 420-1 to authorize the AMUF which gives the president the power to declare war without requiring their approval. So would you STILL say it was/is an undeclared war? I usually hear that argument from liberals reciting what they heard on TV.

So are you comfortable with Congress voting to cede all Congressional power to the Executive branch or just the power to attack other countries when it sees fit?

USMCSergeant
04-12-2012, 02:07
I'm comfortable these were declared wars. I'm really tired of hearing they are undeclared or unconstitutional. It's simply not true. How would you be comfortable with declaring war? Popular vote?

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2012, 06:12
I'm still waiting for anyone to point out what constitutional requirements for a declaration of war are not met by authorizations for the use of force. If they are good enough for James Madison, the father of the constitution, they are good enough for me.

G19G20
04-12-2012, 12:04
I'm thinking he was in Elementary school when that briefing was given. What do you think?

You couldn't be more wrong but keep on assuming every Paul supporter is 19 years old if it makes you feel superior. Though it would be rather embarrassing to you if a 19 year old knows more about conservative history than you do. :upeyes:

I'm still waiting for anyone to point out what constitutional requirements for a declaration of war are not met by authorizations for the use of force. If they are good enough for James Madison, the father of the constitution, they are good enough for me.

It was good enough for every war up until Korea, which includes the World Wars. The constitution says "declare war". Not "authorize use of force". Or "cede warmaking to the Executive". DECLARE WAR. And that's exactly what we did throughout our history. Hell, we "declared war" on OURSELVES in the Civil War. Maybe the reason is because every war starting with Korea have been imperialistic wars of aggression, not wars to defend this country from attackers. Which Koreans attacked America? Which Vietnamese attacked America? Which factions in Bosnia attacked America? Which Iraqis attacked America? Which Afghans attacked America? ad nauseum

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2012, 17:44
You couldn't be more wrong but keep on assuming every Paul supporter is 19 years old if it makes you feel superior. Though it would be rather embarrassing to you if a 19 year old knows more about conservative history than you do. :upeyes:


You're right, I probably should not assume. OK, then let me ask. How old are you? What professions have you worked in, and for how long?

Just to be fair, I am 44. Worked stacking hay in the summers and food service work in High School. Joined the military at 18. Pharmacy Tech my first 10 years, Physician Assistant my last 10. I traveled a little bit. Best I can recall, I lived in or visited 22 countries in 20 years. Still working as a Physician Assistant.


It was good enough for every war up until Korea, which includes the World Wars. The constitution says "declare war". Not "authorize use of force". Or "cede warmaking to the Executive". DECLARE WAR. And that's exactly what we did throughout our history. Hell, we "declared war" on OURSELVES in the Civil War. Maybe the reason is because every war starting with Korea have been imperialistic wars of aggression, not wars to defend this country from attackers. Which Koreans attacked America? Which Vietnamese attacked America? Which factions in Bosnia attacked America? Which Iraqis attacked America? Which Afghans attacked America? ad nauseum


Nope, swing and a miss. They should really go back and see if they can reclaim a tiny percentage of the salary your History teachers made.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82969.pdf



Key Statutory Authorizations for the Use of Military Force
From the Administration of President John Adams to the present, there have
been various instances when legislation has been enacted authorizing the use of military force by the President instead of formally declaring war. In most cases such legislation has been preceded by a specific request by the President for such authority. During the Presidencies of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, these Chief Executives noted in messages to Congress that Congressional authorizations for use of force would be appropriate to enable the United States to protect its interests from
predatory actions by foreign powers, in particular attacks on U.S. commercial vessels and persons on the high seas by France and by Tripoli. Congress responded with specific authorizations for the use of force under the President’s direction in 1798 against France and in 1802 against Tripoli. In 1815 President James Madison
formally requested that Congress declare war against the Regency of Algiers in response to its attacks on U.S. citizens and commerce in the Mediterranean. Congress responded with an Act authorizing the President to utilize U.S. armed vessels to be used against Algerian naval attacks but did not declare war.



The random uninformed civilians highlighted in red, might have a little more insight into constitutional intent than either of us. One of them is commonly referred to as the "FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION". Do you know which one?

Oh, and most wars are aggressive. The term "war of aggression" is as redundant as it is a marker for people that don't understand much in the way of war.

Sheesh. Google something a little bit before you stick your foot into the mouth up to the knee the next time. It's embarrassing.

juggy4711
04-12-2012, 22:12
What Legislative powers defined in the CotUS are unconstitutional for the Legislature to give Authorization for to the Executive?

G19G20
04-12-2012, 22:48
You're right, I probably should not assume. OK, then let me ask. How old are you? What professions have you worked in, and for how long?

Just to be fair, I am 44. Worked stacking hay in the summers and food service work in High School. Joined the military at 18. Pharmacy Tech my first 10 years, Physician Assistant my last 10. I traveled a little bit. Best I can recall, I lived in or visited 22 countries in 20 years. Still working as a Physician Assistant.

Im 36 and have always worked in IT, including federal and local government positions where I could see the politics, corruption and waste up close and personal. Yep, I'm jaded. Here's an interesting factoid. I used to work directly under the man that was eventually appointed as Obama's first Chief Information Officer. He was a slimy bastard and played politics perfectly. Taking credit for the successes of his employees and blaming his own failures on the same employees, whenever it suited his agenda. And look where he ended up. Yep, I'm jaded.



Nope, swing and a miss. They should really go back and see if they can reclaim a tiny percentage of the salary your History teachers made.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82969.pdf


The random uninformed civilians highlighted in red, might have a little more insight into constitutional intent than either of us. One of them is commonly referred to as the "FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION". Do you know which one?

Oh, and most wars are aggressive. The term "war of aggression" is as redundant as it is a marker for people that don't understand much in the way of war.

Sheesh. Google something a little bit before you stick your foot into the mouth up to the knee the next time. It's embarrassing.


No one is claiming that every individual military action or maneuver has to be a declared war. Here's the one GIANT difference that the report actually exposes if you're paying attention. The examples given in the gov't report that you are referring to are purely naval protection exercises. They don't involve invading a sovereign country with military troops! EVERY action that involved invading a sovereign country required a declaration of war and was declared accordingly. The Navy escorting ships in international waters isn't by itself a war and isn't invading a sovereign country. The trend you see with the report you posted is that every instance where US military made landfall on foreign land involved a Declaration of War, prior to Korea. The trend for historical "authorizations of use of force" were specifically naval exercises that involved no invasions of sovereign foreign nations. See the difference? We've completely abandoned Declarations of War even for invasions now though that was obviously the historical delineation. It's absurd to claim that every specific military operation or maneuver or protection mission requires a Declaration of War and I'm not claiming it does. Invading other countries does though and the history proves it. Invasions involve civilian loss of life, large military casualties, property destruction and other considerations that naval maneuvers do not and therefore require a much higher level of consideration by Congress and the People. Declarations of War were designed for these extra considerations.

Additionally, letters of Marque and Reprisal would have sufficed for those naval missions and I don't expect a State Dept report to actually explain that antiquated notion and to what extent they were used during those missions.

HOMERUN!

(Btw, Im curious why you changed the font, color and size of my previous post? Seems disingenuous.)

Cavalry Doc
04-13-2012, 09:11
Im 36 and have always worked in IT, including federal and local government positions where I could see the politics, corruption and waste up close and personal. Yep, I'm jaded. Here's an interesting factoid. I used to work directly under the man that was eventually appointed as Obama's first Chief Information Officer. He was a slimy bastard and played politics perfectly. Taking credit for the successes of his employees and blaming his own failures on the same employees, whenever it suited his agenda. And look where he ended up. Yep, I'm jaded.





No one is claiming that every individual military action or maneuver has to be a declared war. Here's the one GIANT difference that the report actually exposes if you're paying attention. The examples given in the gov't report that you are referring to are purely naval protection exercises. They don't involve invading a sovereign country with military troops! EVERY action that involved invading a sovereign country required a declaration of war and was declared accordingly. The Navy escorting ships in international waters isn't by itself a war and isn't invading a sovereign country. The trend you see with the report you posted is that every instance where US military made landfall on foreign land involved a Declaration of War, prior to Korea. The trend for historical "authorizations of use of force" were specifically naval exercises that involved no invasions of sovereign foreign nations. See the difference? We've completely abandoned Declarations of War even for invasions now though that was obviously the historical delineation. It's absurd to claim that every specific military operation or maneuver or protection mission requires a Declaration of War and I'm not claiming it does. Invading other countries does though and the history proves it. Invasions involve civilian loss of life, large military casualties, property destruction and other considerations that naval maneuvers do not and therefore require a much higher level of consideration by Congress and the People. Declarations of War were designed for these extra considerations.

Additionally, letters of Marque and Reprisal would have sufficed for those naval missions and I don't expect a State Dept report to actually explain that antiquated notion and to what extent they were used during those missions.

HOMERUN!

(Btw, Im curious why you changed the font, color and size of my previous post? Seems disingenuous.)

Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...

G19G20
04-13-2012, 11:35
Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...

There's a historical delineation that's clear and I laid it out in the last post. You used the examples of Adams and the other founders. Obviously they knew where the line was since they wrote the document. Im a big supporter of referring to the founder's writings and actions in interpreting constitutional intent. SCOTUS doesn't even do that anymore. Naval escorts and combat incidental to those escorts don't require declarations and that appears to be the founders intent. I would never argue that we should be declaring war against Somalia to escort ships against pirates who happen to be from Somalia. Land wars, however, require declarations and that's shown over and over in American history up until Korea.

For the record, Ron Paul introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque against the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress voted it down.

If there's any thing we should have learned it's that Declarations of War serve to unite the country behind a single war effort and there's nothing more powerful than the USA united behind a war effort. When Congress and the People don't consider Declarations, the wars don't have support and don't end. Want to win a war? Declare it. Want to lose it? Don't declare it. Check the history.

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 21:22
Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...

There's a historical delineation that's clear and I laid it out in the last post. You used the examples of Adams and the other founders. Obviously they knew where the line was since they wrote the document. Im a big supporter of referring to the founder's writings and actions in interpreting constitutional intent...

For the record, Ron Paul introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque against the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress voted it down...Check the history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjMFYAdvHJc

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 21:43
Where in the constitution does it draw distinction between naval and ground operations and the need for a formal declaration that says "we declare war on thee". I think you've imagined that.

A rose by any other name...

The Founders did have it right, they did understand it better than anyone. So try to argue with this.

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." - Ben Franklin

"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government" - Ben Franklin

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" -Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not" - Thomas Jefferson

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens" - Thomas Jefferson.

Cavalry Doc
04-14-2012, 06:28
There's a historical delineation that's clear and I laid it out in the last post. You used the examples of Adams and the other founders. Obviously they knew where the line was since they wrote the document. Im a big supporter of referring to the founder's writings and actions in interpreting constitutional intent. SCOTUS doesn't even do that anymore. Naval escorts and combat incidental to those escorts don't require declarations and that appears to be the founders intent. I would never argue that we should be declaring war against Somalia to escort ships against pirates who happen to be from Somalia. Land wars, however, require declarations and that's shown over and over in American history up until Korea.

For the record, Ron Paul introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque against the perpetrators of 9/11. Congress voted it down.

If there's any thing we should have learned it's that Declarations of War serve to unite the country behind a single war effort and there's nothing more powerful than the USA united behind a war effort. When Congress and the People don't consider Declarations, the wars don't have support and don't end. Want to win a war? Declare it. Want to lose it? Don't declare it. Check the history.

Wait a minute. You aren't such a strict constitutionist after all. The bottom line, is there is no constitutional difference between the type of armed force used. That was a requirement imagined outside if the constitution. Also, a published document affirmed by the members of congress, allowing the CINC to commit acts of war, and even refrencing the "War Powers Act", is a declaration of war, as it meets every constitutional requirement for a DoW, even if it is a wimpy PC way to do it. Evidently, you have criteria and rules that are not constitutional when it comes to the use of military force to commit acts of war.

Cavalry Doc
04-14-2012, 06:38
The Founders did have it right, they did understand it better than anyone. So try to argue with this.

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." - Ben Franklin

"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government" - Ben Franklin

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" -Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not" - Thomas Jefferson

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens" - Thomas Jefferson.

I have no idea how your post is supposed to be an answer to mine. The founders were men. Simple humans. Imperfect in their professional and personal lives. They disagreed amongst themselves constantly, and with themselves on occasion. The document they created was imperfect, but it was a pretty good second attempt after an abject failure. Still, I like it.

I showed where three founders used authorizations for the use of force. One of them, commonly referred to as "THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION". Now none of these guys are as versed in the document as well as Ron Paul, buy its pretty clear that the intent of the constitution is congressional consent to wage war, and if it's good enough for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams, they are good enough for me.

A rose by any other name...

Ringo S.
04-17-2012, 10:35
DECLARE WAR. And that's exactly what we did throughout our history. Hell, we "declared war" on OURSELVES in the Civil War.
Many times before Korea USA conduct war, without Declaration of war. Of course, if you can call War by different name, you wouldn't have Wars at all.
For example Pershing Expedition in Mexico not War at all, despite US military entering other country. Same thing about Nicaragua in 1920s. And so and so.