Blackwater Security Guards (2 from TN?!?)

[Guest jackdog]

Hey Tungsten by all means please give us the benifit of your vast combat experience.

[Daniel]

uh oh.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

This should be entertaining.

[Smith]

The reason Blackwater and similar security companies are hated are because they are are incredibly effective. They don't have to get political (beurocracy etc.), have little media accountability, and they don't have to deal with congress. They make governments look bad and the media can't make them fail.

Just look at the case in Sierra Leone. Executive Outcomes went in and ran out foreign rebel forces (60k of them) with less than 4k men in less than 3 months. NATO got their panties in a wad cause they weren't in charge, banned contractors (by foreign governments) inserted 40k "Peace Keepers" and within 2 months the rebels not only took back ground, but captured and took over the capitol forcing NATO to negotiate and legitimize their overthrow. To this day these countries are in a mess. You will not see a positive article on Blackwater by any major media company.

I suggest people understand what and how these guys operate before using the biased politically correct crap that is release by media outlets.

Shadow Company is an excellent documentary on the subject.

[TGO David]

Hey Tungsten by all means please give us the benifit of your vast combat experience.

You know, I haven't let a Marine kiss my ass lately. You're first in line.

[BimmerFreak]

Hey Tungsten by all means please give us the benifit of your vast combat experience.

Im sitting on the sidelines on this one, as I have discussed my opinions and personal experience with PMCs in the past, but I am curious;

Jackdog- whats YOUR experience regarding armed combat in general, and Blackwater and/or DoD contracted PMCs specifically?

We've got us a bunch of $@#)$& experts here....lol

[Guest jth_3s]

The Men who work for Blackwater are Mercenaries not Patriots. They fight for the almighty dollar. If they are found guilty hold them accountable just as you would hold a Negligent Surgeon accountable if he screwed up in surgery.

[Cannon Fodder]

The lawyers need to stay the **** off the battlefield.

I kind of disagree with you there. I think the lawyers should be put on the battlefields and see how far there knowledge and slick tongue get them.....without weapons or outsite protection.

[bteague2]

The Men who work for Blackwater are Mercenaries not Patriots. They fight for the almighty dollar. If they are found guilty hold them accountable just as you would hold a Negligent Surgeon accountable if he screwed up in surgery.

I don't think they can be called not patriots, aren't most of the guys in Blackwater prior service, if not combat vets? If GI Joe got out of the army and became a tow truck driver in Bumf*ck, TN; does that make him not a patriot now? If so then almost none of us on here are.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

I don't think they can be called not patriots, aren't most of the guys in Blackwater prior service, if not combat vets? If GI Joe got out of the army and became a tow truck driver in Bumf*ck, TN; does that make him not a patriot now? If so then almost none of us on here are.

Their prior qualifications and service don't justify their current employment. Definition of the term:

Patriot : a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. A person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

So it's actually arguable that their current role is that of a patriot. They're on foreign soil, simply performing a wartime job to get paid. That's pretty much their sole goal in doing it... tax free income in the $80k-120k+ range, per year. They're not over there defending our country. Sure it might go hand in hand with them accomplishing whatever contract they're working, but it's not the same as our military troops fighting over there.

I know a few operators personally, and family of friends, and they're doing it for two reasons:

a) The money.

They enjoy their work.

So, personally, I'd be more apt to label them Mercenaries. Not trying to take anything away from their past career, or Vet status, but their current like of work isn't the same thing.

ETA: I'm all for organizations like Blackwater, so don't get me wrong... not bashing them at all. I just disagree with your logic that this makes them Patriots.

[bteague2]

Their prior qualifications and service don't justify their current employment. Definition of the term:

Patriot : a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. A person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

So it's actually arguable that their current role is that of a patriot. They're on foreign soil, simply performing a wartime job to get paid. That's pretty much their sole goal in doing it... tax free income in the $80k-120k+ range, per year. They're not over there defending our country. Sure it might go hand in hand with them accomplishing whatever contract they're working, but it's not the same as our military troops fighting over there.

I know a few operators personally, and family of friends, and they're doing it for two reasons:

a) The money.

They enjoy their work.

So, personally, I'd be more apt to label them Mercenaries. Not trying to take anything away from their past career, or Vet status, but their current like of work isn't the same thing.

ETA: I'm all for organizations like Blackwater, so don't get me wrong... not bashing them at all. I just disagree with your logic that this makes them Patriots.

I'm not saying it does make them patriots, I'm just saying that it doesn't make them not patriots. It is a small difference I know, and I agree with you that it depends on why they do it.

But after rereading the definition and the paragraph after the definition. I'd say Iraq is an American interest, so I would say that they'd still fit into the definition you used even though it is just a war-time job for them.

[Daniel]

The difference is they would be anywhere blackwater sent them.

[strickj]

I'm not saying it does make them patriots, I'm just saying that it doesn't make them not patriots

Gotta love the double negatives!

So by saying doesn't make them not patriots,wouldn't that just make them patriots,or would they be not,not patriots?

[Guest jth_3s]

The difference is they would be anywhere blackwater sent them.

+1 Its kinda scary

[bteague2]

The difference is they would be anywhere blackwater sent them.

The listing I've seen and I'm not implying all of them are like this but they have had a specific location in them. But I could be wrong and that would completely sink my argument.

So by saying doesn't make them not patriots,wouldn't that just make them patriots,or would they be not,not patriots?

I couldn't think of how else to phrase it earlier, I know double negatives are a no no. So to rephrase that, I was trying to say that being blackwater employees does not disqualify them as patriots.

Edited December 11, 2008 by bteague2
eta spelling

[Guest Verbal Kint]

But after rereading the definition and the paragraph after the definition. I'd say Iraq is an American interest, so I would say that they'd still fit into the definition you used even though it is just a war-time job for them.

It's all about agenda.

These guys aren't over there fighting for our country (they did that for X amount of years, prior, if they were military)... they're over there for themselves and families... to make a living and get paid for their work. Most of these gigs are protection services... not tracking down and eliminating terrorist cells. That's the military's job. Totally different missions.

They're mercs... and if you don't like that label, you can call them privateers. They offer their services, per the contracts they accept, and in return get paid for said actions. As I said before, they're job contracts might run parallel to those of the military... making you say "Hey, these guys are real patriots and heroes!"... but that's definitely not why they're there.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[bteague2]

It's all about agenda.

These guys aren't over there fighting for our country (they did that for X amount of years, prior, if they were military)... they're over there for themselves and families... to make a living and get paid for their work. Most of these gigs are protection services... not tracking down and eliminating terrorist cells. That's the military's job. Totally different missions.

They're mercs... and if you don't like that label, you can call them privateers. They offer their services, per the contracts they accept, and in return get paid for said actions. As I said before, they're job contracts might run parallel to those of the military... making you say "Hey, these guys are real patriots and heroes!"... but that's definitely not why they're there.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

We don't have to... because I agree with you on most of your points. Even though they are doing a totally different job then hunting down terrorists they still play a very vital role to our presence in Iraq. Without the PMCs we would have to raise our troop level to fill the roles that they do which we all know the Dems would love.

I can't really (logically) argue they aren't mercs but I still stand by that doesn't mean they aren't patriots. On the same page there are people in the military that are just there for a job and a steady paycheck/college loan/whatever.

[TripleDigitRide]

So, is it possible that Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors could possibly be guilty any anything they've ever been accused of?

Does anyone honestly believe Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors should be allowed to "take care of business" without any regard for laws?

As I have stated in earlier posts, I definitely don't have all necessary facts in any cases which Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors were accused and/or charged, but some of you seem completely against any notion that these people could do any wrong. And if they do actually do something wrong, they should be left alone, simply because of the situation they happen to be in.

[Daniel]

Not to further the argument but the PMC's (private military contractors) are not all americans either.

[Daniel]

So, is it possible that Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors could possibly be guilty any anything they've ever been accused of?

Does anyone honestly believe Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors should be allowed to "take care of business" without any regard for laws?

As I have stated in earlier posts, I definitely don't have all necessary facts in any cases which Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors were accused and/or charged, but some of you seem completely against any notion that these people could do any wrong. And if they do actually do something wrong, they should be left alone, simply because of the situation they happen to be in.

I think they should be held accountable for their actions just as I think the US military members should.

*off topic*

Cases like that of the killings in Mahmudiyah disgust me and I think steven green should be put to death and Im anti death penalty if that tells you anything.

I was a member of the 502nd Infantry Regiment and hate that those men were also.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Daniel

[Guest Verbal Kint]

So, is it possible that Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors could possibly be guilty any anything they've ever been accused of?

Possible? Sure. Anything's possible, until proven otherwise.

Likely? That's a whole other debate. But I'm sure there is truth to some allegations out there.

Does anyone honestly believe Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors should be allowed to "take care of business" without any regard for laws?

No... there should always be governing policies in place, for any organization. But they should be realistically based to ensure safety of not only the cattle around them, but the operators themselves. And I think the military's RoE needs to be revamped as well.

As I have stated in earlier posts, I definitely don't have all necessary facts in any cases which Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors were accused and/or charged, but some of you seem completely against any notion that these people could do any wrong. And if they do actually do something wrong, they should be left alone, simply because of the situation they happen to be in.

I don't think it's that. I think a lot of us, especially prior military, know how much BS is involved in the RoE (Rules of Engagement). It often puts the operators in clear danger, just to avoid liability or diplomatic repercussions. And not only that, but it seriously becomes a witch hunt whenever something goes wrong.

No one is saying that they should be left alone if they clearly do something in violation of their operating orders or host nation's laws. Nor are we saying they're impervious to ever doing wrong. We just take these stories with a grain of salt, anymore, unless there's clear proof. Something this story is lacking. The whole thing wreaks of a BS political witch hunt.

Just my $0.02.

ETA: I also read somewhere (besides the story linked here) that BW states they were fired upon, and thus returned fire, and that there were clearly weapons in the hands of the confronting force. However, after the shooting took place, and investigators showed up on scene, no weapons were found. With the tone of that country, as well as the time that transpired between shots fired and investigators on scene, those weapons could have easily gone *poof*. That's why I made the reference to the movie Rules of Engagement earlier. If you've ever watched it, you know exactly what I mean.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Verbal Kint

[TripleDigitRide]

Possible? Sure. Anything's possible, until proven otherwise.

Likely? That's a whole other debate. But I'm sure there is truth to some allegations out there.

No... there should always be governing policies in place, for any organization. But they should be realistically based to ensure safety of not only the cattle around them, but the operators themselves. And I think the military's RoE needs to be revamped as well.

I don't think it's that. I think a lot of us, especially prior military, know how much BS is involved in the RoE (Rules of Engagement). It often puts the operators in clear danger, just to avoid liability or diplomatic repercussions. And not only that, but it seriously becomes a witch hunt whenever something goes wrong.

No one is saying that they should be left alone if they clearly do something in violation of their operating orders or host nation's laws. Nor are we saying they're impervious to ever doing wrong. We just take these stories with a grain of salt, anymore, unless there's clear proof. Something this story is lacking. The whole thing wreaks of a BS political witch hunt.

Just my $0.02.

ETA: I also read somewhere (besides the story linked here) that BW states they were fired upon, and thus returned fire, and that there were clearly weapons in the hands of the confronting force. However, after the shooting took place, and investigators showed up on scene, no weapons were found. With the tone of that country, as well as the time that transpired between shots fired and investigators on scene, those weapons could have easily gone *poof*. That's why I made the reference to the movie Rules of Engagement earlier. If you've ever watched it, you know exactly what I mean.

Yea, I know what you mean. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand a little more. Your logic is very understandable.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Your logic is very understandable.

My wife would often disagree with you.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

My wife would often disagree with you.

Surely you're not citing a female as some kind of authority on logic.

[bteague2]

So, is it possible that Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors could possibly be guilty any anything they've ever been accused of?

Does anyone honestly believe Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors should be allowed to "take care of business" without any regard for laws?

As I have stated in earlier posts, I definitely don't have all necessary facts in any cases which Blackwater/Blackwater employees/Blackwater independent contractors were accused and/or charged, but some of you seem completely against any notion that these people could do any wrong. And if they do actually do something wrong, they should be left alone, simply because of the situation they happen to be in.

The question is whose laws? Not ours, they aren't in America. There in Iraq, so Iraqi law; and they were hired by the military so if it's in their contract then the UCMJ too.