Room at Gitmo for Blackwater?

[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.

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.

and all this time i thought you were "done" with this thread. apparently not eh?

it's fine with me that congress is looking into things. i seriously doubt that blackwater employees can go on a rape pillage and plunder escapade in iraq without any legal consequences, which is what many like to portray them as. they are civilian contractors hired by the government. surely there must be some accountability if the government hired them, hmm?

i answered your question with a simple no. you took that and ran with it and turned it into a personal issue as i disagreed with your viewpoint and you subjected me to a smear campaign. rather sad on your part. perhaps the real issue is you are looking for someone to agree with you. you won't find that with me.

[NavarreMan 10]

You win Charles! Congratulations.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

You win Charles! Congratulations.

actually, if you're going to use that word, it's

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

an inside joke here on vj

[NavarreMan 10]

Not for you.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

Not for you.

so what did i win? a trip to vegas to watch another filming of cops?

[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.

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.

People are willing to serve in the military Dan. The fact is, we are here now. No sense in focusing energy on the reasons for invasion or the nobility of the cause. I know you are gung-ho for diplomacy, but you need to understand that if we pulled the military out, we would be taking with us the security, but more importantly we would be playing right into the radical's hands. Bribing them out of violence with diplomatic negotiations would only encourage more of it, just the same as paying off hostage takers would encourage more kidnapping, wouldn't you say?

We had a huge amount of multi-national support in Iraq during the initial phases. So yes, we had allies, but as popularity disappeared, so did they.

To re-involve my original point, if people want BW to exit Iraq, then either a suitable replacement must be found, or a level of higher security must be attained to alleviate the need for so many security contractors. Both of which could be attained through greater support of our allies. With terror attacks occuring all over the world, wouldn't it benefit our friends to have Iraq as an ally in the WOT just as much as it would benefit us?