Iraq bans Blackwater operations, all Blackwater personnel told to leave immediately
- Thread starter Manedwolf
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Not according to the administration hiring them.
I'd say that in my experience they are well trained; the problem is (IMO) just the latter...a lack of accountability for their actions.
JuanCarlos
New member
Or perhaps they had a perfectly decent son who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and a Blackwater guy shot him:
CrazyIvan007
New member
The private and "innocent" bystanders house these slime. They allow these people to reign in their neighborhoods. They allow this evil to live among them.
They are FAR from 'innocent' in my opinion.
Did they jump to warn anyone of the presence of the attackers? Do they march in the streets against the violence? Do they take up arms and stand against these villain? NO!
Don't whine to me about deaths of innocents. We are there trying to do the job they DO NOT do, the military and private companies both. "Innocents" in Iraq are killed in mass every day. Not only by insurgents, but by our military and private security companies as well. I am VERY interested as to why this company has been blackballed by the Iraqi interim govt. as well as left out to dry by ours.
People talk about their lack of being responsible to anyone. Well, who has stood to defend them? NO ONE. Our govt. has said nothing about them doing their job. Our govt. has said nothing about holding the Iraqi govt. accountable for the thousands of US military deaths, citizen deaths, and so forth.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
They are FAR from 'innocent' in my opinion.
Did they jump to warn anyone of the presence of the attackers? Do they march in the streets against the violence? Do they take up arms and stand against these villain? NO!
Don't whine to me about deaths of innocents. We are there trying to do the job they DO NOT do, the military and private companies both. "Innocents" in Iraq are killed in mass every day. Not only by insurgents, but by our military and private security companies as well. I am VERY interested as to why this company has been blackballed by the Iraqi interim govt. as well as left out to dry by ours.
People talk about their lack of being responsible to anyone. Well, who has stood to defend them? NO ONE. Our govt. has said nothing about them doing their job. Our govt. has said nothing about holding the Iraqi govt. accountable for the thousands of US military deaths, citizen deaths, and so forth.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
JuanCarlos
New member
Lacking other details I can't guarantee he wasn't crooked, but there is this:
Generally the guys killing our troops aren't actually on the Iraqi government payroll acting on order from the Iraqi government.
EDIT: To clarify, sometimes they are on the payroll (I had some IP's IED a convoy I was on...or at least assist) but they aren't actually acting as agents of the Iraqi government at the time. Unlike PMC's.
In the so-called "good 'Ol Days....
...these guys were known as mercenaries...today, PC makes them "contractors"...they are dogs of war who do and kill as and whomever they please...there is no place for these yahoos...yes...they were once in the military, and many were operatives, but they are now doing what they could not do in the military...kill indiscriminately, unaccountable to anyone, and they are making upwards of $800.00+ per day...these are not patriots, and they are sacrificing NOTHING in this goat rope...unlike the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coasties who lose their lives and for low pay, these guys don't even die...they were already dead when they sold their souls. I do hope the Iraqi government snatches up these psychopaths and show them some Iraqi justice.
...these guys were known as mercenaries...today, PC makes them "contractors"...they are dogs of war who do and kill as and whomever they please...there is no place for these yahoos...yes...they were once in the military, and many were operatives, but they are now doing what they could not do in the military...kill indiscriminately, unaccountable to anyone, and they are making upwards of $800.00+ per day...these are not patriots, and they are sacrificing NOTHING in this goat rope...unlike the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coasties who lose their lives and for low pay, these guys don't even die...they were already dead when they sold their souls. I do hope the Iraqi government snatches up these psychopaths and show them some Iraqi justice.
Last edited:
CrazyIvan007
New member
JC:
My whole point is that things happen. It is no ones fault, other than the attackers. In a firefight, a person holds himself accountable to no one but himself and the guy next to him. You can flush the thought of politics and political correctness out the window when you hear those little metal things whistling over your head and impacting the environment around you, followed by the loud crack of the gun.
I think we oughta get the hell out of Iraq. We are not doing what we need to do, so WHY BOTHER?
But, if we are going to be there, proper consideration for our forces, public and private, should be made.
Did the US send military reinforcements to help these guys out? I doubt it.
Now, don't take my statements the wrong way. Some acts of our military and private personnel in Iraq is uncalled for and wrong. But these guys weren't targeting innocents. These guys didn't purposely target the policeman. They were defending themselves. They were trying to do the job they were sent to do.
Hmm, let's send our private security forces out with white flags...let's see how far they get.
My whole point is that things happen. It is no ones fault, other than the attackers. In a firefight, a person holds himself accountable to no one but himself and the guy next to him. You can flush the thought of politics and political correctness out the window when you hear those little metal things whistling over your head and impacting the environment around you, followed by the loud crack of the gun.
I think we oughta get the hell out of Iraq. We are not doing what we need to do, so WHY BOTHER?
But, if we are going to be there, proper consideration for our forces, public and private, should be made.
Did the US send military reinforcements to help these guys out? I doubt it.
Now, don't take my statements the wrong way. Some acts of our military and private personnel in Iraq is uncalled for and wrong. But these guys weren't targeting innocents. These guys didn't purposely target the policeman. They were defending themselves. They were trying to do the job they were sent to do.
Hmm, let's send our private security forces out with white flags...let's see how far they get.
It's about time Blackwater and the thousands of other private contractors in Iraq be held to account by someone. As it has been since they got there, contractors in Iraq have been absolute free agents, subject to no law whatsoever, US or Iraqi. It's unfair for our military personnel to be held accountable (in theory anyway) if they wantonly kill civilians but private contractors aren't.
Some on this forum obviously consider all Iraqi's expendable, and think there's no such thing as an innocent civilian there. This from Americans who like to tell the world how moral and just we are as a people.
JuanCarlos
New member
Alnamvet, not every PMC (for Blackwater or any other company) is as you describe. I'd even suggest that the "bad apples" are a minority. The problem is that the company (and above them, the government) doesn't hold those "bad apples" accountable, thus spoiling "the bunch."
And CrazyIvan, I'd agree that it's about time to cut our losses...and that in firefights (especially in urban areas) somethings things happen. At the same time, PMCs in particular haven't always been the best at restraint because (unlike soldiers) they're highly unlikely to be held accountable even when they do use much more force than necessary for self-defense.
Regardless of whether this was such a case (and it may not have been) it's still their country...if they want to ask that company to stay out, that's their privilege. They could ask our entire military to leave tomorrow if they felt like it. We also have the right make our continued military presence (which, at this time, is at their government's request) contingent on allowing Blackwater to continue to operate there...they could take it or leave it.
Personally I don't think it matters either way. The name on the paycheck is irrelevant, these positions will just be filled by other contractors with similar policies. The whole thing is largely symbolic; the Iraqi government trying to assert some actual sovereignty inside their own borders. More power to them. I'd not shed a tear if we took our ball and went home anyway.
And CrazyIvan, I'd agree that it's about time to cut our losses...and that in firefights (especially in urban areas) somethings things happen. At the same time, PMCs in particular haven't always been the best at restraint because (unlike soldiers) they're highly unlikely to be held accountable even when they do use much more force than necessary for self-defense.
Regardless of whether this was such a case (and it may not have been) it's still their country...if they want to ask that company to stay out, that's their privilege. They could ask our entire military to leave tomorrow if they felt like it. We also have the right make our continued military presence (which, at this time, is at their government's request) contingent on allowing Blackwater to continue to operate there...they could take it or leave it.
Personally I don't think it matters either way. The name on the paycheck is irrelevant, these positions will just be filled by other contractors with similar policies. The whole thing is largely symbolic; the Iraqi government trying to assert some actual sovereignty inside their own borders. More power to them. I'd not shed a tear if we took our ball and went home anyway.
CrazyIvan007
New member
Isn't that what our Govt. is telling the Iraqi people? That our way is better than theirs?
I don't believe everyone is expendable. But, as in another thread...You can't trust anyone to save your butt. If you want to be safe, you have to do it for yourself. Doesn't matter what country or place you are in. These people who allow this to go on in their neighborhood want someone else to save their butts, but then complain when something bad happens? Yea, that is a good one.
And, from what I understand...anyone can be held accountable for war crimes in accordance with international law and the Geneva Conventions. This does not just apply to military forces.
EDIT:
I was never in a combat situation. But worked for a private company, installing electronics (things like GPS systems, radios, emergency smoke deployment controls) and run-flat systems for vehicles, out of one of the green zones.
I left out the inflamatory bold type. They are contractors, no better or worse than guys who accept contracts to go over and get their power plants running or perform any other function. They are over there working for the American Government. There position is not that of a serviceman who has been compelled to go and they accept a certain amount of risk in taking the job, just like a reporter or construction worker who takes a job in a war zone. That does not make them soulless.
That they get more money for doing the job they do than servicemen is simply capitalism. If servicemen want get out when their enlisment ends and get a job with Blackstone for more. While some of our military are certainly motivated for idealistic reasons I am certain many took the job because it made economic sense for them at the time. Many, especially those reservists who have been called up and retained for multiple tours, almost certainly did not think they were going to be used as IED detectors to prop up a doomed democracy in a civil war.
As far as "who is expendable" I am lucky enough to have never been in the situation our people are in in Iraq. My view is one of a civilian so make of it what you will.
When we send people with guns to some place with the intention of enforcing our will we should be preparred for those people to do whatever they need to do to survive. When people are shooting at them there are two sides, them and anybody else. I am not going to condem people in that situation for doing what they need to do to survive. We gave them the job to go there, even the Blackstone guys who have elected to take the job. When we elect to send them there we do it knowing there may be consequences we are unhappy with but we need to support them. Tough.
If you are uncomfrotable with the fact that anytime you put a man with a rifle into the field he becomes a policy maker then the time to do something about it is before you put him there.
When we send people with guns to some place with the intention of enforcing our will we should be preparred for those people to do whatever they need to do to survive. When people are shooting at them there are two sides, them and anybody else. I am not going to condem people in that situation for doing what they need to do to survive. We gave them the job to go there, even the Blackstone guys who have elected to take the job. When we elect to send them there we do it knowing there may be consequences we are unhappy with but we need to support them. Tough.
If you are uncomfrotable with the fact that anytime you put a man with a rifle into the field he becomes a policy maker then the time to do something about it is before you put him there.
Nothing Inflammatory
with the bold type Muskateer...you may think it, but I don't. What you may find inflammatory is the fact that I have been in combat zones...several...and I am retired military...I have seen first hand what happens when civilian personnel not subject to the UCMJ go to a combat zone...you have neither the miltary background nor the combat experience (from what I have been able to gleen from your posts) to be able to defend these miscreants...there are mercenaries, and there are contractors...mercs kill for pay (and when they are 'outed' for unjustifiable homicides, they are quickly removed from the theater, and reassigned somewhere else as a time out) and contractors are non-combatants, who provide logistical services.
Have a peacefull and Green Day.
with the bold type Muskateer...you may think it, but I don't. What you may find inflammatory is the fact that I have been in combat zones...several...and I am retired military...I have seen first hand what happens when civilian personnel not subject to the UCMJ go to a combat zone...you have neither the miltary background nor the combat experience (from what I have been able to gleen from your posts) to be able to defend these miscreants...there are mercenaries, and there are contractors...mercs kill for pay (and when they are 'outed' for unjustifiable homicides, they are quickly removed from the theater, and reassigned somewhere else as a time out) and contractors are non-combatants, who provide logistical services.
Have a peacefull and Green Day.
Thanks for your service Alnamvet. If you did not mean anything by the bold type then I am sorry for the accusation. Typically in netspeak bold type and capitals are considerred yelling although I have heard of rare cases where sofware limitations required them. I assume you are such a case.
If somebody hires mercs they are responsible for their behaviour in the same way they are responsible for their own military. I would not expect our own troops to be overly picky when someone is shooting at them and would think the same should apply to any mercs we hire to fill roles there as well.
There is no reason we cannot require them to comply to the UCMJ, but it should be done in their contract as part of their agreement to accept emplyoment. I would support making that law binding for all branches of the US Government who hire them. Take it or leave it.
I do have problems with people second guessing the actions of those we hire or deploy to carry weapons in a hostile land. I have not been there but I can imagine that very bad things can and do occur in such instances. I doubt there was ever a war without an atrocity. Whenever we put anyone, merc or US soldier, in the line of fire we should fully expect him to do anything he deems neccessary to get home alive. For people to act surprised after something they don't like happens is hipocritical and shows complete ignorance when it comes to understanding what people do to stay alive. As I said before (actually David Drake said it better), When you give a man a gun you make him a policy maker. If you don't like the implications of that the time to do something is before you give him the gun.
If somebody hires mercs they are responsible for their behaviour in the same way they are responsible for their own military. I would not expect our own troops to be overly picky when someone is shooting at them and would think the same should apply to any mercs we hire to fill roles there as well.
There is no reason we cannot require them to comply to the UCMJ, but it should be done in their contract as part of their agreement to accept emplyoment. I would support making that law binding for all branches of the US Government who hire them. Take it or leave it.
I do have problems with people second guessing the actions of those we hire or deploy to carry weapons in a hostile land. I have not been there but I can imagine that very bad things can and do occur in such instances. I doubt there was ever a war without an atrocity. Whenever we put anyone, merc or US soldier, in the line of fire we should fully expect him to do anything he deems neccessary to get home alive. For people to act surprised after something they don't like happens is hipocritical and shows complete ignorance when it comes to understanding what people do to stay alive. As I said before (actually David Drake said it better), When you give a man a gun you make him a policy maker. If you don't like the implications of that the time to do something is before you give him the gun.