Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Iraq: Getting Better All the Time!
(It can't get much worse.)
Blackwater USA marked for elimination by the Iraqi government after 10 (says AFP; LA Times says 8) Iraqi civilians shot and killed by Blackwater employees. Blackwater says its men were fired upon and acted in legitimate defense. The State Department says it's "not in a position to assign any blame." How this plays out will say a lot about who runs the game in Iraq.
Rolling Stone on some of the other problems with private contractors in Iraq.
|9.18.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Good thing Bremer gave the mercenaries blanket pre-emptive immunity. Otherwise, they might get in trouble.
Like a Moonstone Cowboy|9.18.07 @ 2:36PM|#
PAINTED SCHOOLS.
FRESH.
PAINT.
mmm. these snozzleberries taste like snozzleberries.
|9.18.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Good for the Iraqi government. Nice to see them get rid of those who target Iraqi civilians.
|9.18.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Those two statements are not contradictory.
Once you figure that out, the failure of George and Dick's
Excellent Adventure becomes easy to explain.
JBinMO|9.18.07 @ 2:52PM|#
I have a great idea to handel the personel shortages. We go to England and take all the people in their prisons and sent them to Iraq. We can give them nice uniforms, maybe....blask and tan ones.
Guy Montag|9.18.07 @ 2:52PM|#
For some reason your writer buddies at The National
Review are calling this a military contract. It is in fact a
State Department contract. Yes, they do quite a bit of Defense
Department work for various countries, but all of their bad antics
in Iraq, that I have been able to track down, are under State
Department contracts.
Just getting that out there before the mistaken posts come flooding
in.
Also, stay tuned for Triple Canopy to get into big trouble soon. I
do not have any specific info on that looming, but they hire the
same sort of trigger-happy cowboys that Blackwater hires.
|9.18.07 @ 2:54PM|#
On the other hand, Reuters is reporting a huge drop dead and
wounded in the morgue and hospital in Baghdad.
We're talking 70%.
That really is good news.
Horton|9.18.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Things have improved somewhat. This greatly disturbs those individuals who have invested so much blogosphere prestige on an Iraq failure. How horrible for you if Iraq gets its act together. Not that you don't wish the troops well.
fyodor|9.18.07 @ 3:01PM|#
How horrible for you if Iraq gets its act
together.
And of course it's your political opponents who overly obsessed
with whether or not they're proven right in Iraq. Right?
|9.18.07 @ 3:02PM|#
JonBuck,
Antisemitic murders in Hungary have dropped to almost nothing since
1945, too.
That'll happen when the minority group is successfully
cleansed.
JBinMO|9.18.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Damn!!!! Things are going well in Iraq!!!! I am so sure that if things in Iraq go poorly the libertarian cannidate is bound to win the Whitehouse in 08. What to do? What to do?
Horton|9.18.07 @ 3:17PM|#
of course it's your political opponents who overly
obsessed
I don't belong to any political party or ideology. I think for
myself. Once upon a time "libertarianism" meant individualism, but
there's certainly a herdlike mentality here when it comes to
Iraq.
|9.18.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Uh, yeah. No way people could independently arrive at the
conclusion that the Iraq War is a clusterfuck after having watched
it unfold for five years.
Take a look back through the archives, Horton. There were plenty of
libertarians who supported this war when it was launched. There are
a lot fewer now.
Minion of URKOBOLD|9.18.07 @ 3:20PM|#
ALL HAIL HORTON. HE'S A FREE THINKER.
GOOD THING HE'S NOT IN A HERD WITH IRAK.
HE'S IN A FLOCK. OR A MURDER? NO -- A POD. HOW ABOUT A GAGGLE? A
PRIDE? WAIT. IT'S IRAK.
SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[regrets today's (somewhat) free time]
|9.18.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Oh, yes, Horton, because libertarianism isn't just a political
philosophy, it's A WAY YOU HAVE TO COMPLETELY LIVE LIFE! DON'T YOU
GET IT? IF LIBERTARIANS AGREE, NOW THEY'RE IN A GROUP! OH, THE
IRONY.
*Ahem*
now to the more interesting portion of our program...
|9.18.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Once upon a time "libertarianism" meant individualism, but there's certainly a herdlike mentality here when it comes to Iraq.
I suppose there's also a "herdlike mentality" here when it comes to
deciding to hit oneself in the head with a hammer. We're largely
against it. Yet we're (paradoxically) okay with that oh-so-profound
loss of individuality.
I admire your courage to continue hitting yourself with the hammer
when all of us sheep (clearly obeying peer pressure) have stopped
doing so.
|9.18.07 @ 3:27PM|#
"Take a look back through the archives, Horton. There were
plenty of libertarians who supported this war when it was launched.
There are a lot fewer now."
I guess the question is what does "support" mean. I would think
that regardless of what you think of the war you would want things
to work out well in the end and view the reduction in deaths in
Baghdad as good news. As far as comparing it to Hungary, first,
there are still plenty of Sunis and Shias in Bahgdad, second al
Quada is perfectly willing to kill anyone, and third if the morges
were full of bodies people would certainly look at that as a sign
of failure. It only makes sense that the declining deathtoll is
therefore good news, as if that needs to be said anyway, how could
fewer deaths not be good news?
Honestly Joe, I really hope a Democrat wins in 2008. We will still
be in Iraq but it will then be okay for people like you to pull for
us to win. The country will be a lot better off.
|9.18.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Back to the real point of this thread, contractors are a big problem. They are not answerable to anyone yet the US is responsible for any war crimes they commit. I frankly hope the Iraqis kick blackwater out.
JBinMO|9.18.07 @ 3:29PM|#
"Some English tutoring, perhaps?".
Whats wrong with my post. Maybe a comma is needed.
Timothy|9.18.07 @ 3:30PM|#
I used a nerf hammer back in my hammer days, it appears that Horton's isn't quite so forgiving.
|9.18.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Folks, I have it on good authority that things have
improved. Somewhat, anyway. What, you were hoping for miracles?
Hey, $500 billion only goes so far, after all. Let's just wait a
couple of years and spend a few more hundred billion of our
taxpayer dollars. You'll see then ... those Iraqis will be happy
and peaceful. It'll be money well spent! Sure, Al Qaeda will still
be a threat, but hey, you can't have everything.
What, you think you could have done something more
productive for national security with that amount of treasure (and
blood)?
|9.18.07 @ 3:32PM|#
John,
Away from the real point of this thread, you need to recognize the
difference between "I don't think we can win this war" and "I hope
we don't win this war."
I'd love a perpetual motion machine. That doesn't mean it's
possible for me (or anyone) to build one.
|9.18.07 @ 3:35PM|#
"Some English tutoring, perhaps?".
Whats wrong with my post. Maybe a comma is needed.
I think you will find that the seriousness with which people take
your posts is inversely proportional to the number of exclamation
points in the post.
|9.18.07 @ 3:35PM|#
John,
There are a lot fewer Sunnis in Baghdad than there used to be. The
whole east side of the city has been cleansed, and the Sunni area
in the west is getting smaller and smaller.
I suspect that those bodies in the morgue will drop even further as
soon as it gets rubbed out completely.
how could fewer deaths not be good news?
OK, I'll type it again: by demonstrating that the campaign of
cleansing has succeeded. Which it has. During the period of the
Surge, aka the Baghdad Security Plan.
And in case you didn't notice, we didn't "win" in Iraq when 80% of
the country was "pushing for it." Sometimes, feelings and ze Will
aren't the only things that matter.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm pushing very hard for our
troops, and the Sunnis in the provinces, to succeed in cleaning up
the al Qaeda mess we made. But I'm not deluded enough to pretend
that my "pushing" is going to make any difference in the
outcome.
|9.18.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Back to the real point of this thread, contractors are a big
problem. They are not answerable to anyone yet the US is
responsible for any war crimes they commit. I frankly hope the
Iraqis kick blackwater out.
How are they not answerable to anyone? They just lost their
contract rights because they aren't reigning in there guys enough.
This could (and probably will) have a massive impact on their
business. Other firms may get hired in their place that don't have
such aggressive operatives. The US military certainly doesn't have
to worry about that.
I imagine Blackwater is going to bend over backward to try to fix
this mess.
|9.18.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Hey guys,
WTF?
Thanks for telling me that we libertarians weren't doing the
"Hitting-Self-In-Head-With-Hammer" thing anymore!
You know how many hammers I've gone through these last few
weeks?!?
|9.18.07 @ 3:44PM|#
I think you will find that the seriousness with which people
take your posts is inversely proportional to the number of
exclamation points in the post.
Proven by my last post, which was really serious!! !! ! !!! !
|9.18.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Libertarians do not support wars of choice. Our current war is a waste of life the men and women in uniform have been betrayed by our governments leaders and those dumbasses who supported it. I believe that our occupation has caused more Iraqis to die then any of the worse excesses of Sadaam. I find it disturbing that the MSM downplays the number of Iraqis that are being killed while we try to deliver "democracy" by bullet. So how many are dead I have seen numbers as high as a million + and even if that is high number do you really believe the governments numbers. The American people don't really appear to care that we have destroyed a sovereign nation through an illegal war. You cannot fight a war for peace it is an oxymoron.
|9.18.07 @ 4:01PM|#
I personally believe that the US Americans in the Iraq are, truthishly, needing of maps for the African children to find the United States on a map.
|9.18.07 @ 4:37PM|#
"""How are they not answerable to anyone? They just lost their
contract rights because they aren't reigning in there guys
enough."""
For the record no one's lost anything yet. The kicking them out
talk is rhetoric at this point. We'll have to wait and see. They do
have immunity so they can kill at will with little recourse, as
long as it stays out of the spotlight. I'm sure Blackwater is
crapping their pants on this, not because of what actually happend
but the attention it's receiving. I don't know if Iraq should kick
them out, but they should be forced to operate lawfully and under
the laws of the host nation. That alone will force them to behave,
or pout like a baby and leave.
The whole idea needs to be revisted. What if there was war in this
country? Are these guys going to be driving around shooting any
armed citizen that disagrees with them. Citizens that have a right
to armed defense under the Constitution.
"""We will still be in Iraq but it will then be okay for people
like you to pull for us to win."""
It depends on your definition of "win". I don't think any American
citizen wants us to lose. That's bullshit rhetoric from the right.
How can you expect the average citizen to support it when the
President can't really explain what a "win" looks like. Even the
general are back tracking from the western style democracy that
Bush claimed was victory. If that was victory and it's being said
to lower expectations, they are talking about "not winning". At
lest from the original goal. They are spinning the failure of
victory as some sort of winnable situation.
If your car mechanic tells you he can make your car run as good as
new, and it runs only so-so when you pick it up. I don't think you
would call that a win when you're paying the bill.
I think there would have been less negativity if the war wasn't
sold as a "cakewalk" to be won in a "matter of weeks not months"
and "paid for by Iraqi oil". Very little, if any of what the Bush
admin has said has proven true. A Democrat President can't fix
that. If a Democrat is elected and does what is necessary to
salvage this endeavor, I'm sure the right side will whine like
there is no tomorrow. It's a mess and the outcome probably will not
look pretty. I'm sure those who are supporting Bush's
mischaracterizations, will not support a Democrats
mischaracterizations.
It reminds me of people who will hang on to a stock when in heads
for the ground thinking I have lost until I've sold.
fyodor|9.18.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Horton,
Whether someone thinks for themself or not is pretty much
impossible to demonstrate, so don't make a fool of yourself with
your preening.
Meanwhile, your independent thinking completely missed my point,
which is that you were doing, in that post, exactly what you were
accusing others of doing, focusing more on who's right or wrong,
you or those with whom you disagree (since you have no "opponents,"
being so high and mighty and independent and all) than about the
situation itself.
|9.18.07 @ 4:44PM|#
When the Democrats gain enough power to control the direction of
this war, John - either through a few Republican defections over
the next months, or the capture of the White House - I will be
pulling for exactly the same things I have been pulling for since
2004.
Withdrawing from Iraq on a responsible timetable.
Getting out of the middle of the sectarian violence.
Using our withdrawal and its announcement as part of a
political/diplomatic push to promote a political deal between
Sunnis and Shiites.
Keeping a significantly-reduced number of troops in the area for
counterterror missions, and to protect the Kurds.
Refocusing on al Qaeda.
|9.18.07 @ 4:45PM|#
What I want to win, John, is the war against al Qaeda.
It is because of my desire to win that I opposed invading Iraq, and
support leaving.
SIV|9.18.07 @ 5:23PM|#
It is because of my desire to win that I opposed invading
Iraq, and support leaving.
So joe you weren't like all those other "look in the mirror at the
real terrorist", Afghanistan is a quagmire-Bush's Vietnam, we
should take a law enforcement approach and try them in the
Hague
liberals and liberaltarians?
|9.18.07 @ 5:24PM|#
SIV,
does it matter if he was? It doesn't make any difference about
whether we should stay in Iraq now.
|9.18.07 @ 5:29PM|#
SIV,
No, I am not. The vast majority of Iraq opponents were not.
We actually raised a number of objections quite different from the
silly charactures you mention.
Perhaps we wouldn't be in this sanguinary quagmire if the
administration and its allies had bothered to acknowledge and think
about them, instead of having a good old time calling us racists,
cowards, America-haters, appeasers, and terrorist sympathizers. A
lot of good people would still be walking the earth.
fyodor|9.18.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Honestly Joe, I really hope a Democrat wins in 2008. We will
still be in Iraq but it will then be okay for people like you to
pull for us to win. The country will be a lot better
off.
Then we'll have Republicans hoping for the Democratic president's
policies to fail! It'll be about the same....
(Note, I have no opinion about what joe is thinking; I do think
it's just human nature to many or most people to hope for the
failure of their most immediate threat; some people do rise above
this, and joe may or may not; perhaps a good test for whether to go
to war is whether the threat of the war enemy evokes more fear in
the homeland population than political opponents do for each other
within that population!)
SIV|9.18.07 @ 5:32PM|#
What I want to win, John, is the war against al
Qaeda.
Well a lot of the "anti-war" types who now want to "get" al qaeda
and bin Laden were against that front of the war before we
re-entered Iraq. Democrats have made noise about North Korea, Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan and Iran as having been better choices than
Iraq.
So yes, it matters a lot.
pdog|9.18.07 @ 5:32PM|#
If Ron Paul wins, do you think he would give Blackwater letters of Marque and Reprisal?
SIV|9.18.07 @ 5:38PM|#
If Ron Paul wins, do you think he would give Blackwater
letters of Marque and Reprisal?
He ought to pledge to do so now it could only boost his chances of
getting the GOP nomination.
|9.18.07 @ 5:49PM|#
SIV,
I don't think you actually know "many anti-war types." You just
know the propaganda that's been put out to discredit anti-war
positions.
SIV|9.18.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Pretty clever of those anti-war types to discredit themselves so they could call their own positions "propaganda".
GILMORE|9.18.07 @ 6:07PM|#
The kicking them out talk is rhetoric at this
point.
Actually the Iraqi government doesnt even have the discretionary
authority to "kick them out" anyway. Seriously. We forced the govt
to let us make decisions re: contracting agencies when they formed
the constitution, and all they can do is bitch about it. Hence
blackwaters shrug about the whole deal. They also FWIW often
provide security for Iraqi politicians. If we up and left tomorrow
along with all out contractors, the Iraqi govt would be some of the
first targets of the purges. This whole deal is just posturing.
bill|9.18.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Salon.com has agood story on this.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/18/blackwater/
thoreau|9.18.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Pain-
If you think that losing a contract is sufficient incentive to
refrain from killing people without cause, then perhaps you think
that the penalty for murder should simply be a large fine?
JBinMO|9.18.07 @ 7:44PM|#
Just ask OJ. You pay a very large fine to your attorney and it's over with.
Muttley|9.18.07 @ 7:54PM|#
amazing article. didn´t know that Joseph Heller was alive and writing for the Rolling Stone.
edna|9.18.07 @ 8:12PM|#
Libertarians do not support wars of choice.
all wars are wars of choice. even if invaded, one has the choice of
surrender.
translation into nerdish: think of the organians.
|9.18.07 @ 8:58PM|#
Actually the Iraqi government doesnt even have the
discretionary authority to "kick them out" anyway. Seriously. We
forced the govt to let us make decisions re: contracting agencies
when they formed the constitution, and all they can do is bitch
about it. Hence blackwaters shrug about the whole deal. They also
FWIW often provide security for Iraqi politicians. If we up and
left tomorrow along with all out contractors, the Iraqi govt would
be some of the first targets of the purges. This whole deal is just
posturing.
That sounds more like a fault of our government than Blackwater's.
Blackwater is simply fulfilling a contract as outlined by the
government agencies that have hired it. If the government gives
them autonomy to do what they want, then they need to revise the
stipulations of the contract if that's the problem. If however
Blackwater violated rules put in place by it's employer then the
issue is with Blackwater. And for them to continue to be hired they
better adjust their way of doing things.
Fluffy|9.18.07 @ 10:21PM|#
It's really very tiresome watching rump war advocates glam on to
new metrics and new milestones every year to "prove" that the war
is at last going well and that those dastardly antiwar folks will
get their comeuppance soon.
It was relatively rational to present such an argument in 2003. It
was a little less rational in 2004, but still quite understandable.
It was getting annoying in 2005. In 2006, it was comical, but not
in a good way - more of a black comedy vibe going on there. In
2007, it's just an insult to my intelligence.
You know and I know we'll be having the same conversation next
September. Probably in an even more bitter way, because the
remaining war supporters will be even more desperate, and the sane
people - excuse me, the war opponents - will be that much more
frustrated by the refusal of our own dead-enders to view reality,
or to perform even a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis.
With regard to the subject at hand: I am not one of those
anarcho-capitalist libertarian types who is pleased as punch to see
private armies being formed. I view them as a long-term threat to
civil society. Personally, I'm not particularly thrilled at the
prospect of a 20,000 - 50,000 man armed force with no loyalty to
the Constitution or to anything other than a paycheck hanging out
inside our borders. I should hope for them to stay in Iraq, I guess
- that's a lot better than having them around here. Personally I
think we should audit all the Iraq security firms Truman-style, and
if there's even a single fucking stapler or box of post-its
missing, smash these companies and throw as many of these guys as
possible in jail.
GILMORE|9.18.07 @ 11:06PM|#
You know and I know we'll be having the same conversation
next September. Probably in an even more bitter way, because the
remaining war supporters will be even more desperate, and the sane
people - excuse me, the war opponents - will be that much more
frustrated by the refusal of our own dead-enders to view reality,
or to perform even a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis.
No fucking kidding.
Plus, by then they'll blame the fact the thing went to shit on
people who failed to 'believe'.... as though Wars are won by the
starry-eyed faithfulness of the civilian citizenry. Sober
evaluation of facts borders on treason.
They remind me of those hippies in the Woodstock Movie who go "AND
IF WE ALL THINK REAL HARD, MAYBE WE CAN STOP THIS RAIN!!! NO RAIN
NO RAIN NO RAIN NO RAIN!!!"
and then it starts to pour
|9.19.07 @ 12:27AM|#
edna:
all wars are wars of choice. even if invaded, one has the
choice of surrender.
That absolute expansion of the definition of the expression "wars
of choice" so as to make it meaningless evades the sound
libertarian principle, posited by the founders of the American
republic, that wars that are unnecessary to our liberty and
security should be avoided.
|9.19.07 @ 8:05AM|#
"If you think that losing a contract is sufficient incentive to
refrain from killing people without cause..."
We don't know those people were killed "without cause" yet.
Certainly blackwater seems to have been a little too quick on the
trigger, but apparently many of you need to be reminded that
driving through Baghdad is not at all similar to a Sunday drive
through Mayberry.
Blackwater's convoy was hit with an IED followed by small arms
fire. They fired back. Some people were killed. Some of those
casualties were undoubtedly innocents. Who is to blame? Blackwater,
for driving through the area, or those who detonated the IED and
fired on the blackwater convoy? What if that had been an Iraqi army
convoy that was attacked? Do you think they would have done things
differently?
|9.19.07 @ 8:15AM|#
With regard to the subject at hand: I am not one of those anarcho-capitalist libertarian types who is pleased as punch to see private armies being formed. I view them as a long-term threat to civil society. Personally, I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of a 20,000 - 50,000 man armed force with no loyalty to the Constitution or to anything other than a paycheck hanging out inside our borders. I should hope for them to stay in Iraq, I guess - that's a lot better than having them around here. Personally I think we should audit all the Iraq security firms Truman-style, and if there's even a single fucking stapler or box of post-its missing, smash these companies and throw as many of these guys as possible in jail.
|9.19.07 @ 8:21AM|#
With regard to the subject at hand: I am not one of those anarcho-capitalist libertarian types who is pleased as punch to see private armies being formed. I view them as a long-term threat to civil society. Personally, I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of a 20,000 - 50,000 man armed force with no loyalty to the Constitution or to anything other than a paycheck hanging out inside our borders. I should hope for them to stay in Iraq, I guess - that's a lot better than having them around here. Personally I think we should audit all the Iraq security firms Truman-style, and if there's even a single fucking stapler or box of post-its missing, smash these companies and throw as many of these guys as possible in jail.
I am also troubled by these "private armies". I don't agree with
the "investigate them into prison" suggestion, but I would like to
see them gone from American operations. American military
operations ought to be conducted by American soldiers, sometimes in
concert with coalition armies.
|9.19.07 @ 8:34AM|#
Personally, I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of
a 20,000 - 50,000 man armed force with no loyalty to the
Constitution or to anything other than a paycheck hanging out
inside our borders. I should hope for them to stay in Iraq, I guess
- that's a lot better than having them around here. Personally I
think we should audit all the Iraq security firms Truman-style, and
if there's even a single fucking stapler or box of post-its
missing, smash these companies and throw as many of these guys as
possible in jail.
If we were in 16th century Europe with free companies roaming
around the countryside I might agree. But we live in a world with
large (comparitively) permanent professional armies with little
danger of being overcome by roving bands of mercenaries. And why do
you assume these mercenaries aren't anymore patriotic than the next
guy. Most of these guys are former US military anyway. Do think
they would just sell out their country just like that?
|9.19.07 @ 1:55PM|#
"""Who is to blame? Blackwater, for driving through the area, or
those who detonated the IED and fired on the blackwater convoy?
What if that had been an Iraqi army convoy that was attacked? Do
you think they would have done things differently?"""
One of the local news channels listed some of their rules of
engagement. One was to fire only targeted shots. If true, they
violated their own rules. Shit happens when the bullets fly, that
doesn't mean it's an excuse.
Security companies should alway be more resticted than the
military. If you need more military, supply it.
|9.19.07 @ 2:09PM|#
One of the local news channels listed some of their rules of engagement. One was to fire only targeted shots. If true, they violated their own rules. Shit happens when the bullets fly, that doesn't mean it's an excuse.
In a firefight, targeting gets much more difficult.
Security companies should alway be more resticted than the military. If you need more military, supply it..
blackwater works for the state department, but philosophically I
agree with your point. Personally, I would prefer to see the
private security companies out of Iraq. Private security companies
do most of the movement of Americans aroung Iraq. I am personally
acquainted with a lot of the private security guys working in
Baghdad. They are very professional, and show extreme restraint in
sometimes very scary situations. I don't know any blackwater guys
because I am over here with the army, but these security guys are
all drawn from the same pool: retired special forces, marines, some
cops. This blackwater incident could have happened with any of the
companies.
|9.19.07 @ 3:24PM|#
"""In a firefight, targeting gets much more difficult."""
What, as opposed to a non-firefight? It's no excuse. Those guys
signed up for duty. They need to abide by the rules or quit.
"""They are very professional, and show extreme restraint in
sometimes very scary situations."""
Most people over there, including some military would disagree. I
would think that since 4 of them were strung from a bridge,
everyone of them keeps that incident in the back of their mind as
something to avoid no matter how many innocent civilians you have
to kill. The BIG difference between them and the military is who
you answer to. Everyone in the military knows their command can
punish them for anything they do under Article 15 of the UCMJ.
Including blowing your nose at the wrong time. Blackwater staff
have a license to act anyway they want as long as the keep a low
profile. They have no accountability. That should change and
probably will.
edna|9.19.07 @ 3:37PM|#
wars that are unnecessary to our liberty and security should
be avoided.
then you've made a fuzzy, ill-defined phrase... muddy and unclear.
;-)
supporters of the current occupation of iraq would argue that it is
necessary for the preservation of our liberty and security. i think
they're wrong about that, but that is the sincere belief of a
not-inconsiderable number of people. i haven't met a supporter of
the occupation who thinks it's "unnecessary."
the phrase is gaseous. no-one supports "unnecessary war" any moreso
than anyone isn't "pro-life."
|9.19.07 @ 10:52PM|#
edna:
then you've made a fuzzy, ill-defined phrase... muddy and
unclear. ;-)
Damn it! And I always try to contribute to the enlightenment,
too.
It can be shown via the evidence (lack of WMD, lack of AQ/terrorist
connections) that the attack on Iraq was unnecessary for our
liberty and security, thus making it a ( war of choice/elective
war).
I don't believe that the chief supporters of the current occupation
of Iraq actually believe that it's necessary for the preservation
of our liberty and security.
I do believe that some of them think that the occupation serves the
Likudnik /Israeli government agenda, including the facilitation of
a US military attack on Iran.
I believe that others of the chief supporters of the current
occupation have economic gain at stake in the continuation of the
occupation. I'm thinking of the Cheney-Halliburton nexus sort of
groups.
I guessing that there's some intersection of these two types but
I'm not sure and don't have examples at hand, if any exist.
no-one supports "unnecessary war" any moreso than anyone isn't
"pro-life."
That comparison doesn't work for me cuz supporters of unnecessary
wars will present the case to try to show that they are indeed
necessary, while (at least some) supporters of abortion will admit
that life is extinguished but say that that act is justified if it
comes at the behest of the mother.
highnumber|9.19.07 @ 11:49PM|#
Why would an anarcho-capitalist be happy that the government is hiring mercenaries?
edna|9.20.07 @ 12:44AM|#
I don't believe that the chief supporters of the current
occupation of Iraq actually believe that it's necessary for the
preservation of our liberty and security.
that's where we diverge.
|9.20.07 @ 2:48AM|#
"""In a firefight, targeting gets much more difficult."""
What, as opposed to a non-firefight?
Well, yes obviously.
It's no excuse. Those guys signed up for duty. They need to abide by the rules or quit.
This is silly. EVERYBODY has an obligation to place "well aimed"
shots. There is NEVER a legitimate reason for anybody to shoot a
non-combatant; and yet it happens. You and I want every round fired
to find its way to the black heart of an Al Qaida murderer. That is
a nice ideal, but this is the real world.
|9.20.07 @ 3:43AM|#
legitimate reason for anybody to shoot a
non-combatant
I meant to say "intentionally shoot a non-combatant..."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245