One of the things the Democrats learned from Vietnam was that the American voters might accept causing us to lose a war but they didn't react well to spitting on soldiers when they came home. They have applied this lesson to Iraq, doing everyting possible to cause us to lose while still ritually reciting how much they supported the troops and loved them, even as they accused them of attrocities. The recent controversy over alleged civilian casualties caused by the Blackwater private security firm has been something of a catharsis for Democrats, allowing them to vent all that anger and hatred they have for the military, only in a politically safe way. Since Blackwater is staffed almost exclusively by the most elite of former soldiers, the Green Berets, Seals, Marine Recons, it is basically a proxy for the U.S. military. Since its main mission in Iraq is guarding U.S. diplomats and othe VIPs, it is clearly an arm of the government. So what better target for the democrats? They can attack Blackwater and get the satisfaction of attacking men who pull triggers for a living and face death every day. As a bonus, they can make the U. S. mission more difficult by undermining essential security. And as every news report points out in the first couple of paragraphs, Blackwater is a billion dollar company, so there is the added satisfaction of attacking an evil corporation. Plus, they can still claim to support the troops. Is it great to be a moonbat Democrat or what? Republican support for Blackwater has been timid, which is hardly surprising since the typical Republican response to any Democrat attack is to immediately go into the fetal position. Republicans seem to fight back aggressively only when they are backstabbing their own supporters, eg on immigration. The State Department is conducting a "review" of the latest Blackwater controversy when they opened up on some Iraqi "civilians." The Blackwater vehicles are said to bear bullet marks from an attack, the former Green Berets,e tc say they were attacked, but a few Iraqis claim they weren't, so in the best tradition of the Bush administration, the iraqis are believed and the Americans are being measured for a frame job. Maybe they could put them in the same prison with the two Border Patrol agents they railroaded. If the Republican presidential candidates had any balls, they would make this the defining issue of the campaign. Put the Democrats in the position of siding with those who are after Blackwater, eg the corrput Iraqi government. Put the Republicans on the side of former Green Berets, Seals, etc who risk their lives to protect American diplomats. Let the American people decide.
Did you write this yourself? Regardless, mercenaries have been around for a long time, the principle is simple enough, they defend shit/kill stuff for appropriate pay. Is that, in itself, immoral, ammoral, or somehow tawdry? Not really; the swiss pikemen, (mercenaries) for a good hundred years, ruled european warfare with their revolutionary discipline and effective mobile battle tactics, and over that time, they fought for -pretty much the highest bidder-until they were eventually defeated convincingly-AFTER their pay didnt come through. Why were these soldiers, so effective, when they werent fighting for their own lands or sovereignty? Its obvious; the armies they fought were lowly paid, impoverished, lacking in morale and discipline-and those armies were fighting for cheapskate, penny-pinching bastard kings/popes, often relying on conscription and other punitive measures to ensure volume, rather than talent or skill. A "professional" army, working directly for the paymaster, no other allegiance. Its strange, that things seem to have come full circle here, but its equally true the conscripts and enlisted men were as envious of the privateers pay and conditions now, as they were then.
I think it is a bit unfair to liken Blackwater to mercenaries paid to fight wars for other countries. They are guarding American diplomats and VIPs, not invading countries or propping up kings. I saw a long article in USAToday about them today. The CEO pointedly said that the State Department had left them out to dry. He also said that they would not allow any of their men to be arrested by the Iraqis, leaving the obvious question of what would happen if the Iraqis tried. Surely Bush would not be so craven as to have the Army arrest them and turn them over to Iraqi justice. He will lose his last remianing supporters if he does, and the Republicans might as well concede the '08 elections.
I'm not sure what your point is, but anything I didn't write myself is clearly identified as a cut and paste.
They're paid merc's ...they know it...they think of themselves as that. State thinks of them as that. The other Marines and Army pups think of them as that. Get over it.
Oh, i was just wondering, looked like a typical partisan journo piece is all (eg, southamerica's posts) , so you did write all that? Impressive. I think its entirely fair, to liken them to agents for hire, to prop up kings, (shah's even) presidents, (pinochet just as an example) helping invade /or defend a regime; happened in vietnam, afghanistan, nicaragua, cuba, argentina, germany......... Its the extra judicial "helping" bit that seems to cause your angst. You seem happy enough to admit the truth, that such firms have been the mainstay of us foreign policy since haiti's takeover in the early 20th century, or even the arms sales at the crux of the meiji restoration, but all of a sudden you reckon this mob got a raw deal? From the govenment, sure, but please consider, WHEN were these contracts written. When? Some CEO bleating about their dire circumstances, aww, their getting the raw prawn from the press, well golly gosh, its all a cover AAA. Smoke and mirrors, its a dirty job, a shitty business, but their mercenaries, pure and simple. To make a point, an important one, blackwater isnt the only firm in operation, is it? You make it sound like every kernel trout, and trained killing machine rambo is in business in iraq, not true, there are a few multinational companies, more than a few ex british/anywhere mercenaries, and lets not forget the ex iraqi army guys, who would likely be looking at plush security /interpreting jobs as manna from heaven. The issue, is accountability, and plausible denial, as it always has been. No impassioned defence of blackwater corp, should deflect from the reality, that your very leaders made an accounting decision that the military wasnt up to the job, despite the truly remarkable bills for said services, nor should it detract from the fact these personnel arent counted in either casualty statistics (like most iraqis, it would seem) nor the fact their "fees" dont show up in any government accounting for the war, yet they were paid from the same source. That was basically my point, im a realist as you know, but come on, "evil personified or american heroes" borders on the histrionic. Trust me, a flag draped over your coffin isnt worth 1/5th the pay. All wars are mercenary, btw; mercenary meaning, "for money", you can argue all you like, but there it is. Lands, title, resources, megalomania leading to the first three, but its a fact. Jmo.
Mercs rule. That moronic Pelosi was supporting the [annual] move by the Armenians to have the massacre by Turks in 1915 elevated to genocide status. It would have caused Turkey to withdraw support for the Iraq war and they are vital regarding resupply.... the Senate never supported that idea before... that bitchfest of a Senate could have it's approval ratings in the single digits the way they are going.........
Havent the turks just approved large scale reprisal attacks/incursions into northern iraq, against some mob ? Kurdistan workers party or something? Im missing what pelosi or the senate have to do with this, the turks have been looking for an excuse for a "big" reprisal for decades, as have the iranians. Dont tell me, "weakness" in the northern regions is all they need -would never have happened under saddam. All of a sudden, that is a democrats fault?
Separate issues. Pelosi did not tell the Turks to invade Northern Iraq, repeat that until it is understood..... and try not to fire off stray neurons when you read something... Like I said before, and I am talking slower this time and trying to use little words.... Pelosi, as the speaker of the Senate, supported a motion to call the Turkish slaughter of Armenians in 1915 a genocide. The Armenians have been bitching about this issue for decades. It happened, it was just the usual Moslem on Christian murder thingy that they and others have done for centuries... Now then, the Turk government said that if Pelosi was succesful in her efforts they would withdraw support for the US in Iraq.... then the White House got busy and destroyed the effort by Senate Democrats.... who are headed for single digit approval ratings possibly....
Oh, your totally onto something there. Just randomly invading countries, without so much as a good excuse, sure. Turks are pretty good, in that regard. I shall refrain from firing of stray nuerons, while the bill in question and the turkish vote to invade are treated as a single, larger issue, or bargaining chip. Turkey, much to my surprise, supposedly has the second largest army anywhere in europe. How did that happen? Sounds like a lot of ass-kissing bullshit to me. I shall keep a close watch on those stray neurons.