Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If we didn't blow up the bridges, we wouldn't have to rebuild them.
Blackwater
- Thread starter abe23
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
Oh sure, we blew it all up..... uh huh. Guess you missed the Al Queda Comedy show then.....
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If you refer to 9/11 I'd say that was a horrible event. However, it was used as a rallying point to go blow up innocent people in other countries though.
The "we were attacked" argument fails to mention by whom. We were not attacked by Iraq or Afghanistan or men from those countries. The USA has supported dictatorships in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recently so I don't think it's about "bringing freedom" either to that region either.
Just like 40 years ago we were never attacked by Vietnamese, yet 50,000 men from this country died there, allegedly protecting our freedom.
Bringing Freedom and 'we were attacked" are the false flags used to
start wars. You are aware of the quote from Hermann Goering no doubt?
CrackerJax
New Member
I'm talking about the war in Iraq.
Our troops were exemplary in their courage and ability to face adversity. Like cowardly acts of terrorism, and children rigged with bombs.... nice folks.
War is a pitiful thing to be sure. But let's not forget who's standing up for the ppl of Iraq. It wasn't Saddam, it wasn't Al Queda, it wasn't Syria, it wasn't Iran.
It was the USA. And on THEIR own terms (killing anyone, including their own ppl)... we OWNED them.
Was the going tough at times? You bet, war usually is. But when it came to crunch time, BUSH persevered, when everyone else was trying to cut and run. That's leadership my friend ... true leadership. Bush has his faults as all Presidents do, but foreign policy wasn't one of them. Only those who think weakening the USA is good could think otherwise. But being kept safe for 8 years at home can skew that kind of thinking.
If Obama keeps projecting weakness, we'll be attacked again. We are finding more and more plots at home....that's not by chance.
Because Obama is telegraphing to the world that terrorists will get a better deal if they attack INSIDE the US borders.... the terrorists will oblige. Like bees on honey, they will come, they are here already in fact ... planning. It could happen at any time, any where.
We'll see...... but the pattern that has been set up is clear.... quite clear.
Our troops were exemplary in their courage and ability to face adversity. Like cowardly acts of terrorism, and children rigged with bombs.... nice folks.
War is a pitiful thing to be sure. But let's not forget who's standing up for the ppl of Iraq. It wasn't Saddam, it wasn't Al Queda, it wasn't Syria, it wasn't Iran.
It was the USA. And on THEIR own terms (killing anyone, including their own ppl)... we OWNED them.
Was the going tough at times? You bet, war usually is. But when it came to crunch time, BUSH persevered, when everyone else was trying to cut and run. That's leadership my friend ... true leadership. Bush has his faults as all Presidents do, but foreign policy wasn't one of them. Only those who think weakening the USA is good could think otherwise. But being kept safe for 8 years at home can skew that kind of thinking.
If Obama keeps projecting weakness, we'll be attacked again. We are finding more and more plots at home....that's not by chance.
Because Obama is telegraphing to the world that terrorists will get a better deal if they attack INSIDE the US borders.... the terrorists will oblige. Like bees on honey, they will come, they are here already in fact ... planning. It could happen at any time, any where.
We'll see...... but the pattern that has been set up is clear.... quite clear.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Bush has no problem sending other people to die, I will agree with that. Never liked him myself, he's what I would term "phony tough" the kind of guy that would run his mouth in a bar and expect his big buddy to do the dirty work.
Not a fan of his V.P. either, for the same reasons.
By attacking countries that have not attacked the USA, the USA has set a dangerous precedent. War is peace? Perhaps Orwell was right.
9/11, WMD's, U.N. sanctions, Sadaam's an asshole or any of the other excuses used to Iraq do not change the fact that the USA pre-emptively attacked a country that did not attack it. Sadaam was an asshole, no doubt. Imagine if Portugal which has legalized drugs "brought freedom" to the USA by attacking it...because the USA has the worst record of incarcerating people in the world? How would that be any different than the USA "bringing freedom" to Iraq?
I resent the foreign policy of the USA that declares a "do as we say, not as we do" mantra. I believe we would resent it if the shoe were on the other foot. Gotta go, I think I hear the humming of the Portuguese Air Force on the horizon.
Not a fan of his V.P. either, for the same reasons.
By attacking countries that have not attacked the USA, the USA has set a dangerous precedent. War is peace? Perhaps Orwell was right.
9/11, WMD's, U.N. sanctions, Sadaam's an asshole or any of the other excuses used to Iraq do not change the fact that the USA pre-emptively attacked a country that did not attack it. Sadaam was an asshole, no doubt. Imagine if Portugal which has legalized drugs "brought freedom" to the USA by attacking it...because the USA has the worst record of incarcerating people in the world? How would that be any different than the USA "bringing freedom" to Iraq?
I resent the foreign policy of the USA that declares a "do as we say, not as we do" mantra. I believe we would resent it if the shoe were on the other foot. Gotta go, I think I hear the humming of the Portuguese Air Force on the horizon.
CrackerJax
New Member
Every war time president has faced that cowardly assessment. I think u'll find that most Presidents AGONIZE over the losses. Bush is no exception. But their job is to think large and long.... something the USA population is losing the ability to do.
"Progressive"
roll
Liberals have NO ability in this area at all. Just look at Obama's first year of appeasement. the violence is only going to ratchet upwards from it, but he doesn't care. he's playing for political points ... our enemies are playing for keeps. bush understood this ... Obama (and U) do not.
If the USA retracts, someone else will take over, so I'll ask U again.... whom do you think it will be and what will it be like?
"Progressive"
roll Liberals have NO ability in this area at all. Just look at Obama's first year of appeasement. the violence is only going to ratchet upwards from it, but he doesn't care. he's playing for political points ... our enemies are playing for keeps. bush understood this ... Obama (and U) do not.If the USA retracts, someone else will take over, so I'll ask U again.... whom do you think it will be and what will it be like?
naked gardener
Active Member
Clearly YOU do not know what a commodity is.... a commodity is a PHYSICAL product created for COMMERCE--(hence the word commodity). I do not and will not accept national security (for us, or anyone else) as a commodity to be bought and sold.
YOU are misusing the word--I understand what you are trying to say...but again, your understanding of what a commodity is needs some fine tuning. Toilet paper, for example is a commodity, or toothpaste, or any product, again, that is bought and sold. For investors, a commodity is a product used & BOUGHT by nearly everyone (TP, ketchup etc.)
NATIONAL SECURITY CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE TOILET PAPER--yes everyone needs it, but no it is not a commodity.
(oh yeah, sugar and cocoa are 'ingredients' for chocolate--not "commodities", they are only consdiered commodities while they are being bought sold and traded between markets............ security cannot be lumped in w sugar, and should not be bought and sold like sugar--there is no comparison, no analogy between sugar and fucking Blackwater, sheesh)
naked gardener
Active Member
Blackwater does not build bridges.
hahahaha
They are ARMED "contractors" sent to fight--they are a private military force--not construction workers.
The media calls them "contactors" bc they operate under contracts w our gov't--not bc they are actual "contractors" in the sense that we think of them.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
The guy (illegalsmile)claims to have an economics PHD as well, surely he would understand what a comodity is?
naked gardener
Active Member
So a few make them all bad...
Then the same could said for acorn. "So a few make them all bad?"
Those undercover reporters had to go to several acorn offices before they found someone stupid or corrupt enough to "bust out".
Acorn has helped low income and at-risk families w housing and finding resources for years. They have helped countless people--and yep, among them were a few bad apples---AND GUESS WHAT--THEY LOST THEIR GOV'T CONTRACTS BC OF THOSE FEW BAD APPLES--SO WHAT ABOUT BLACKWATER?????
(someone else brougt up acorn earlier in this thread and I found your quote to be perfectly appliable to both cases of gov't SNAFU-ness)
naked gardener
Active Member
you'd think.
CrackerJax
New Member
It's not supposed to happen AT ALL. It's about attitude. The FACT that it has been exposed more than once clinches it. As any judge will tell you, every person that comes before them with a charge has probably commited at least 6 other crimes for which they are not being charged. That's why ppl do crimes...if they all got caught EVERY time, crime would cease to exist. So it goes with Acorn.....
So again, Ill ask all of you... who will do the security in construction zones? Who will guard the contractors? Or should we leave the terrorist rubble ther untouched. Don't build schools and infrastructure Saddam ignored....
Who will do the security? You?
naked gardener
Active Member
Agreed Crackerjax, it is not supposed to happen at all. I'm not defending the actions of those bad apples.
My point with that is: Why does ALL of ACORN lose their trivial amount of funding (trivial compared to the BW contracts) bc of a few bad workers? The people willing to be involved in those inexcusable activities, esp. on the taxpayers dime, should certainly be punished--but why should all of the people that benefited from the legitimate and helpful services that ACORN did provide also be punished by losing a community resource?
Again, Blackwater is paid for by us, like ACORN, but answers to NO ONE but themselves. There are now documented cases of rape, abuse and massacre--yet our money continues to flow into their pockets--the victims have no recourse and the perpetrators have no consequences. THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN AT ALL.
My point with that is: Why does ALL of ACORN lose their trivial amount of funding (trivial compared to the BW contracts) bc of a few bad workers? The people willing to be involved in those inexcusable activities, esp. on the taxpayers dime, should certainly be punished--but why should all of the people that benefited from the legitimate and helpful services that ACORN did provide also be punished by losing a community resource?
Again, Blackwater is paid for by us, like ACORN, but answers to NO ONE but themselves. There are now documented cases of rape, abuse and massacre--yet our money continues to flow into their pockets--the victims have no recourse and the perpetrators have no consequences. THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN AT ALL.
CrackerJax
New Member
Well for one thing.... they have entirely different functions. Secondly,only one of them is actually necessary, and it isn't Acorn.
They are working on a political agenda which is outside of their charter. They should have ALL funding cut, and if they have true merit, will be able to stand on their own.
They are working on a political agenda which is outside of their charter. They should have ALL funding cut, and if they have true merit, will be able to stand on their own.
naked gardener
Active Member
You do not see the necessity for providing resources to at risk and underprivelaged families? Do you not recognize the relationship between poverty, desperation and crime?
The political agenda of ACORN was to provide a forum in which disadvantaged people had a voice and a vote.
The social agenda was to provide information and guidance on housing, employment, education and community service. Those services, IMO, are necessary in many communities. Most disadvantaged people want out of the cycle of poverty and ignorance--but do not often have the resources and information to achieve a better life.
Do not forget that the only reason a contracted security force is necessary in Iraq is bc we invaded them and bombed the shit out their country w NO PROVOCATION and no PLAN.
Often, instead of providing security, Blackwater and contracted forces, bc of their atrocious behaviors, further instill dread and hatred for Americans in that part of the world.
Again, if we are footing the bill--there needs to be protocol in place that is not counter-productive to the actual mission and that does not allow for the gross violation of human rights.
If I was president of some half ass country like Liberia
would I want 20,000 UN troops to stand around doing nothing.
Or would I want 200 well trained South African commandos to run the bastards out?
I would want them run out so I could pay them and get the mercs out of my country.
As opposed to letting the UN stand around with their thumbs up their asses.
For year after year.
I don't buy the rascism part
I just don't because E.O. was half black.
What it was was the UN said they were rascists
and would cut the UN funding for their country if they were not removed.
I would support Mercs in general
because there is no other way for these poor nations
to build up and train their own special forces level guys they often need.
I would like to see some international convention on the conduct of mercs.
However, it would likely be more UN crap.
War is an ugly buisness and the uglier it is the sooner its over.
The UN peace keepers seem to have no interest in ending conflict only prolonging the agony.
would I want 20,000 UN troops to stand around doing nothing.
Or would I want 200 well trained South African commandos to run the bastards out?
I would want them run out so I could pay them and get the mercs out of my country.
As opposed to letting the UN stand around with their thumbs up their asses.
For year after year.
I don't buy the rascism part
I just don't because E.O. was half black.
What it was was the UN said they were rascists
and would cut the UN funding for their country if they were not removed.
I would support Mercs in general
because there is no other way for these poor nations
to build up and train their own special forces level guys they often need.
I would like to see some international convention on the conduct of mercs.
However, it would likely be more UN crap.
War is an ugly buisness and the uglier it is the sooner its over.
The UN peace keepers seem to have no interest in ending conflict only prolonging the agony.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Even liberal globalists believe security is a commodity e.g. PM Barnett. Labor is another commodity. Pearls before swine.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Will Al Qaeda and the Taliban be parties to that international convention on "mercs?" If I see mercs being used anywhere but in the swampy part of the world that needs to be drained I'll worry about it. But it's in precisely those parts where they can best be used. There are no rules in the swamp. Do you really believe that even under the Obama admin we don't have, at this very moment, "the men with no names" over there liquidating targets with zero concern for international conventions? We do.
abe23
Active Member
Again, the country was Sierra Leone and the mercenaries didn't fix shit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Civil_War
Also, the south african police and army were also half black during apartheid years, but no racism there right? I would imagine a lot of them went on to be mercenaries....
And I don't know where you get your info, but UN peacekeeping has had a pretty decent track record the past 20 years or so. Just ask cambodia, mozambique, el salvador or former yugoslavia. Remember all those wars that got ended by private security companies....? Me neither.