Room at Gitmo for Blackwater?

[NavarreMan 10]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

1) I was in our armed forces 15 years ago. (AFSOC/1SOW/HFLD,FL)

2) I am well aware of the comparison in strength from 15 years ago and today.

3) We are not talking about a flippin' Brigade, only a few well trained, specially equipped soldiers.

4) It is a job that could be done by the Secret Service or other Government employees.

5) It would provide for ACCOUNTIBILITY were there is none.

so then you're quite aware it's not the military's mission to protect diplomats. you're also aware that many of those in blackwater are former seals/special forces/etc and far better trained in this sort of thing than the average 11b. and i'd hardly characterize this as a "few" more probably like upwards of 50 or more.

point 4 is perhaps true, yet the secret service still isn't the military which your original post asked about. point 5 is a waste of typing as they are accountable. just perhaps not to the degree some would like.

oh snap. PWNED.

not hardly dear

I'll keep this in mind next time an American Embassy is bombed. We must not send in the troops, instead get a bunch of overpaid civilians to go and do the job our military has been doing for over 200 years. That's right! The United States Marines have been Embassy Guards, guarding our property and Diplomats abroad for over 200 years.

Define "few". I had originally said a couple of hundred but did not want to be accused of exaggerating but in all likelihood the number will be somewhere around a thousand to handle worldwide contingencies.

The degree of accountability you speak of is, according to Mr. Prince, is non-existent. Apparently his men are only accountable to him as he is the CEO of Blackwater. Unless you can show where they are held accountable by US law, UCMJ, or Iraqi law, or even UN law, you don't have a leg to stand on. My arguement is that they are innocent because they have no governing laws that they can violate. You show me what laws pertain to them. And then show that their actions did not violate those laws and then you have a case. Prove they are accountable.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

1) I was in our armed forces 15 years ago. (AFSOC/1SOW/HFLD,FL)

2) I am well aware of the comparison in strength from 15 years ago and today.

3) We are not talking about a flippin' Brigade, only a few well trained, specially equipped soldiers.

4) It is a job that could be done by the Secret Service or other Government employees.

5) It would provide for ACCOUNTIBILITY were there is none.

so then you're quite aware it's not the military's mission to protect diplomats. you're also aware that many of those in blackwater are former seals/special forces/etc and far better trained in this sort of thing than the average 11b. and i'd hardly characterize this as a "few" more probably like upwards of 50 or more.

point 4 is perhaps true, yet the secret service still isn't the military which your original post asked about. point 5 is a waste of typing as they are accountable. just perhaps not to the degree some would like.

oh snap. PWNED.

not hardly dear

I'll keep this in mind next time an American Embassy is bombed. We must not send in the troops, instead get a bunch of overpaid civilians to go and do the job our military has been doing for over 200 years. That's right! The United States Marines have been Embassy Guards, guarding our property and Diplomats abroad for over 200 years.

it seems you are mistaking civilian contractors (i.e. bodyguards) for a viable fighting force. and yes, the marines guard every american embassy, thanks for the news flash. what that has to do with your original statement is quite mystifying. on one hand we have sovereign us soil (the embassy) and the other a potential for attack at any point in time due to a high profile/high payoff target. are you suggesting that the marines would be better suited for guarding diplomats out and about? and given their mission and potential for dying or being maimed, i'd not hardly call them overpaid.

Define "few". I had originally said a couple of hundred but did not want to be accused of exaggerating but in all likelihood the number will be somewhere around a thousand to handle worldwide contingencies.

i'm assuming due to rotations, training, sleep, etc per diplomat that the number could in all likelihood exceed 20 per diplomat. exact numbers are i'm sure closely held. it would not surprise me if the total number is well over 100 in country (and perhaps approaching 500) with that mission, but that number just a wag as we don't know how many diplomats are being protected.

The degree of accountability you speak of is, according to Mr. Prince, is non-existent. Apparently his men are only accountable to him as he is the CEO of Blackwater. Unless you can show where they are held accountable by US law, UCMJ, or Iraqi law, or even UN law, you don't have a leg to stand on. My arguement is that they are innocent because they have no governing laws that they can violate. You show me what laws pertain to them. And then show that their actions did not violate those laws and then you have a case. Prove they are accountable.

oh you've missed a few recent developments in regards to contractors in iraq eh? read up on that will ya - it was discussed here in vj about a month ago if memory serves me correctly.

[mRx 16]

Perhaps if some of our "allies" contributed more than a cat squirt of troops, then maybe the need for US security contractors would subside.

[Dan J 277]

The degree of accountability you speak of is, according to Mr. Prince, is non-existent. Apparently his men are only accountable to him as he is the CEO of Blackwater. Unless you can show where they are held accountable by US law, UCMJ, or Iraqi law, or even UN law, you don't have a leg to stand on. My arguement is that they are innocent because they have no governing laws that they can violate. You show me what laws pertain to them. And then show that their actions did not violate those laws and then you have a case. Prove they are accountable.

oh you've missed a few recent developments in regards to contractors in iraq eh? read up on that will ya - it was discussed here in vj about a month ago if memory serves me correctly.

Actually the accountability only applies to contractors hired by DoD. Blackwater was hired by the Dept of State. Although there is some movement to change that. It hasn't passed yet as far as I know. So until that happens, Blackwater contractors hired by DoS are pretty much immune.

[Dan J 277]

Perhaps if some of our "allies" contributed more than a cat squirt of troops, then maybe the need for US security contractors would subside.

Or we could quit going to war for stupid reasons so people might actually be willing to serve in the military. Damage from Iraq is likely to last a generation. Some damage will likely last much longer.

But then what allies are you talking about? We didn't really go in with allies on this one.

[NavarreMan 10]

so then you're quite aware it's not the military's mission to protect diplomats. you're also aware that many of those in blackwater are former seals/special forces/etc and far better trained in this sort of thing than the average 11b. and i'd hardly characterize this as a "few" more probably like upwards of 50 or more.

point 4 is perhaps true, yet the secret service still isn't the military which your original post asked about. point 5 is a waste of typing as they are accountable. just perhaps not to the degree some would like.

it seems you are mistaking civilian contractors (i.e. bodyguards) for a viable fighting force. and yes, the marines guard every american embassy, thanks for the news flash. what that has to do with your original statement is quite mystifying. on one hand we have sovereign us soil (the embassy) and the other a potential for attack at any point in time due to a high profile/high payoff target. are you suggesting that the marines would be better suited for guarding diplomats out and about? and given their mission and potential for dying or being maimed, i'd not hardly call them overpaid.

i'm assuming due to rotations, training, sleep, etc per diplomat that the number could in all likelihood exceed 20 per diplomat. exact numbers are i'm sure closely held. it would not surprise me if the total number is well over 100 in country (and perhaps approaching 500) with that mission, but that number just a wag as we don't know how many diplomats are being protected.

oh you've missed a few recent developments in regards to contractors in iraq eh? read up on that will ya - it was discussed here in vj about a month ago if memory serves me correctly.

That's the best you can do?

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

so then you're quite aware it's not the military's mission to protect diplomats. you're also aware that many of those in blackwater are former seals/special forces/etc and far better trained in this sort of thing than the average 11b. and i'd hardly characterize this as a "few" more probably like upwards of 50 or more.

point 4 is perhaps true, yet the secret service still isn't the military which your original post asked about. point 5 is a waste of typing as they are accountable. just perhaps not to the degree some would like.

it seems you are mistaking civilian contractors (i.e. bodyguards) for a viable fighting force. and yes, the marines guard every american embassy, thanks for the news flash. what that has to do with your original statement is quite mystifying. on one hand we have sovereign us soil (the embassy) and the other a potential for attack at any point in time due to a high profile/high payoff target. are you suggesting that the marines would be better suited for guarding diplomats out and about? and given their mission and potential for dying or being maimed, i'd not hardly call them overpaid.

i'm assuming due to rotations, training, sleep, etc per diplomat that the number could in all likelihood exceed 20 per diplomat. exact numbers are i'm sure closely held. it would not surprise me if the total number is well over 100 in country (and perhaps approaching 500) with that mission, but that number just a wag as we don't know how many diplomats are being protected.

oh you've missed a few recent developments in regards to contractors in iraq eh? read up on that will ya - it was discussed here in vj about a month ago if memory serves me correctly.

That's the best you can do?

given your short response, no more is needed

[NavarreMan 10]

It was all the response your answer required. Your answer was misleading and inadequate and never addressed the previous question. Rather typical and totally predictable.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

It was all the response your answer required. Your answer was misleading and inadequate and never addressed the previous question. Rather typical and totally predictable.

i'm glad you think so. when you can move past the one or two sentence replies and come back with something substantial, wake me up from my nap.

[NavarreMan 10]

It was all the response your answer required. Your answer was misleading and inadequate and never addressed the previous question. Rather typical and totally predictable.

i'm glad you think so. when you can move past the one or two sentence replies and come back with something substantial, wake me up from my nap.

Hey, the last reply was 3 sentences but that would require the ability to count that high. You still have failed completely to make your point for civilian contractors and their lack of accountability. Why should I bother to go into this with you when your only tack is to avoid the undefendable? Convince me that Blackwater is in any way necessary and that our military is incapable of this mission. Please tell me why you think that our marines or other armed forces are not up to this task.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

It was all the response your answer required. Your answer was misleading and inadequate and never addressed the previous question. Rather typical and totally predictable.

i'm glad you think so. when you can move past the one or two sentence replies and come back with something substantial, wake me up from my nap.

Hey, the last reply was 3 sentences but that would require the ability to count that high. You still have failed completely to make your point for civilian contractors and their lack of accountability. Why should I bother to go into this with you when your only tack is to avoid the undefendable? Convince me that Blackwater is in any way necessary and that our military is incapable of this mission. Please tell me why you think that our marines or other armed forces are not up to this task.

you've not shown me that they are unaccountable for their actions. not once. all you've done is throw out accusations and expect someone to prove to you that your statements are false. i'm not doing your legwork for you.

nor do i need to convince you that blackwater is necessary. the most important fact for you to comprehend is apparently blackwater convinced the government that it is necessary. why should i feel the need to provide some mission statement on behalf of blackwater? try googling their site on the net and maybe you can find it.

as for the marines and other armed forces not being up to the task, previously asked and previously answered.

[NavarreMan 10]

It was all the response your answer required. Your answer was misleading and inadequate and never addressed the previous question. Rather typical and totally predictable.

i'm glad you think so. when you can move past the one or two sentence replies and come back with something substantial, wake me up from my nap.

Hey, the last reply was 3 sentences but that would require the ability to count that high. You still have failed completely to make your point for civilian contractors and their lack of accountability. Why should I bother to go into this with you when your only tack is to avoid the undefendable? Convince me that Blackwater is in any way necessary and that our military is incapable of this mission. Please tell me why you think that our marines or other armed forces are not up to this task.

you've not shown me that they are unaccountable for their actions. not once. all you've done is throw out accusations and expect someone to prove to you that your statements are false. i'm not doing your legwork for you.

nor do i need to convince you that blackwater is necessary. the most important fact for you to comprehend is apparently blackwater convinced the government that it is necessary. why should i feel the need to provide some mission statement on behalf of blackwater? try googling their site on the net and maybe you can find it.

as for the marines and other armed forces not being up to the task, previously asked and previously answered.

I am going to assume that you are a vet. You have the "duck & cover" down pat. I am done with this one.

[natty bumppo 297]

I am going to assume that you are a vet. You have the "duck & cover" down pat. I am done with this one.

I was taught that maneuver in grade school back in the 60's. Who needs to be a vet to learn that?

Didn’t you ever watch the cartoon with the “Civil Defense Turtle” teaching the “duck and cover“ routine?

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

It was all the response your answer required. Your answer was misleading and inadequate and never addressed the previous question. Rather typical and totally predictable.

i'm glad you think so. when you can move past the one or two sentence replies and come back with something substantial, wake me up from my nap.

Hey, the last reply was 3 sentences but that would require the ability to count that high. You still have failed completely to make your point for civilian contractors and their lack of accountability. Why should I bother to go into this with you when your only tack is to avoid the undefendable? Convince me that Blackwater is in any way necessary and that our military is incapable of this mission. Please tell me why you think that our marines or other armed forces are not up to this task.

you've not shown me that they are unaccountable for their actions. not once. all you've done is throw out accusations and expect someone to prove to you that your statements are false. i'm not doing your legwork for you.

nor do i need to convince you that blackwater is necessary. the most important fact for you to comprehend is apparently blackwater convinced the government that it is necessary. why should i feel the need to provide some mission statement on behalf of blackwater? try googling their site on the net and maybe you can find it.

as for the marines and other armed forces not being up to the task, previously asked and previously answered.

I am going to assume that you are a vet. You have the "duck & cover" down pat. I am done with this one.

that just now dawning on you?

btw, not just a vet but retired

[NavarreMan 10]

It was all the response your answer required. Your answer was misleading and inadequate and never addressed the previous question. Rather typical and totally predictable.

i'm glad you think so. when you can move past the one or two sentence replies and come back with something substantial, wake me up from my nap.

Hey, the last reply was 3 sentences but that would require the ability to count that high. You still have failed completely to make your point for civilian contractors and their lack of accountability. Why should I bother to go into this with you when your only tack is to avoid the undefendable? Convince me that Blackwater is in any way necessary and that our military is incapable of this mission. Please tell me why you think that our marines or other armed forces are not up to this task.

you've not shown me that they are unaccountable for their actions. not once. all you've done is throw out accusations and expect someone to prove to you that your statements are false. i'm not doing your legwork for you.

nor do i need to convince you that blackwater is necessary. the most important fact for you to comprehend is apparently blackwater convinced the government that it is necessary. why should i feel the need to provide some mission statement on behalf of blackwater? try googling their site on the net and maybe you can find it.

as for the marines and other armed forces not being up to the task, previously asked and previously answered.

Then why bother at all Charles? You choose to fight defenseless fights. If you don't like it, walk away. No one here demands that you have the last word in anything, yet you feel the need. I am also a retired vet. I have a very different view on things than you. Am I right? Certainly not 100%. But I embrace this fact.

You on the other hand are the ideal Bush supporter. You are right 100% of the time no matter how much we see through your narrow minded, egotistical stance on whatever subject is at hand. You state things that are supposed to sound like fact yet are full of holes.

The most important fact for me to comprehend it not that Blackwater convinced the government that they were needed. (BTW, that is not how contracting works) The most important fact is that our current administration has sanctioned the use of non-accountable guns-for-hire in what many Americans feel is a senseless war. And you challenged that idea. You challenged it without any proof or evidence what-so-ever. My proof is in the fact that Congress in looking into the issues in this matter. Congress Charles. The United States Congress. Members of Congress are saying that they are loose cannons with no accountability. I would certainly consider that to be reasonable cause to think that there is at least the possibility that something is amiss. What more proof do I need? I would suggest that before you open your mouth and claim that they are righteous in their mission and legal standing that you put a little research into the subject. You should at least watch FOX News, even they have reported on this.

I started my involvement in this by asking a simple question. I asked if anyone else thought it was strange that we were using civilians to do this job. In its simplest form this was a yes/no question. Or it could be turned into an interesting and intelligent discussion. Except for you. Nope Charles has to jump in with his $0.02 worth and put somebody in their place.

At this point Charles, I don't care if you respond. I seek to have discussions with those who are willing to listen to other ideas rather than close their ears and minds to those things they disagree with. Talking to you is talking to a brick wall and I have better things to do with my time.

I wish you the best of luck in finding a new victim who will listen to your rhetoric and engage in your senseless battles.