RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A.

RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 10:37:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail well, Lafayette, Fredrick William, Baron de Woedtke, Gustave Rosenthal, Friedrich Wilhelm von Stueben, the Hmong, Al-queda, against Russia in the Russian Afghan conflict as well, we are hiring sunnis in Iraq, against Castro................ and the stuff now. Ron (sad but true). Ah...Ron feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but...the Revolutionary figures you cite were hired to give a professional helping hand to what was a ragtag collection of civilians in the process of being formed into an Army. The Hmong were an indigenous peoples with their own dog in the fight. Al-queda also motivated by something more than money were fighting with or without our financial support....they were not hired in place of American forces. Hiring sunnis in Irag...again an indigenous peoples where we used financial enticement to futher sharpen and aim so to speak there efforts. against Castro.....again you are referring to the use of indigenous peoples(some form other latin American countries to be sure...but still a dog in the hunt if you catch my meaning) This conversation has to do with using mercs instead of and alongside of American military/intelligence personnal.Not the same thing as arming indigenous forces to fight what is essentially their own wars.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 10:37:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Privatizing war will go down as one of Bush's biggest blunders.... Continuing, and escalating, under the current administration: The Obama administration is using mercenaries with the firm formerly known as Blackwater to kidnap and assassinate high value targets in Pakistan, according to a published report. The program, operated out of the US Joint Special Operations Command, "is so 'compartmentalized' that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence," an unnamed source with direct knowledge of the program told The Nation reporter Jeremy Scahill. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Look at it this way - if the prior administration put out to bid the 'Kill Saddam' job and it came it at $1 Billion; not only would it have been cost saving, but all the ongoing angst would have been eliminated. A bit shallow in the analysis, merc, unless you are willing to let the chips fall as they pleased to fill the vacuum. You'll have to document to what you are referencing by your 'shallow' comment in order for me to respond. As a macro - whatever 'vacuum' or where the chips fall; can be addressed with another job going out to bid. The point would be to not deploy a few hundred thousand troops, incurring both the fiscal and political cost, when a group of 10 or 20 well trained and motivated individuals could accomplish the same thing. I think you understood my "shallow analysis" comment. But in case not, the point is that the vast majority of the cost of Iraq was not taking out SH, it was attempting to prevent the chaos in the area that would ensue. So, yes, put another job out to bid....and imo the total cost of those jobs will be about the same as the cost of O.I.F. It can be debated whether a standing army or hiring mercenaries is more cost effective on its own merits, without the simplistic "10 or 20 men plus another bid" argument. I don't think the cost differences would be material, and I don't think its very easy to reason out which is more cost effective. One aspect of mercenary armies, for example, is that most of the members have already had extensive training in the military and/or police. That cost needs to be attributed to the privatization solution. Another is technology. When you have a DoD that is responsible for both the lives of a standing army and developing military technology, the funding of the latter is much easier to obtain than it would be if the technology is in support of mercenaries, because of the "fuck em they knew what they were getting into" attitude that would likely prevail. Deprive the mercenaries of the technology and you need more of them, and the more labor intensive any business is the more it costs. I think there is definite appeal to at least partial privatization of certain missions from a strategic/policy pov. I'm not sure that in reality cost is part of that appeal.

mnottertail -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 10:47:04 AM)
mike, a mercenary is a mercenary. If the dogs hunting was an issue, then they would have been baying hot on the heels of the evil ones before we waltzed in the door. Instead of the names we'ed be calling them we would now refer to them as 'insurgents'. LOL, sad but true. Ron

AnimusRex -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 10:52:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth We are at 'peace keeping' and 'government transition' in Iraq. We are at 'converting hearts & minds' in Afghanistan. Where are those jobs referenced in the mission statement for any branch of the military? I agree with you here- the older I get, the more I admire the wisdom of the Founding Fathers- they specifically made a point that the nation should not go to war without the affirmative assent of the citizens, in a declaration of war. Since Korea, we have seen the Executive Branch slyly usurp this, in going to war with nothing more than unilateral executive orders and resolutions. What makes this so harmful, is that the original intent was that war is so destructive, and so momentous a decision, that the Founders wanted to make sure that the American people were really on board with it, ready to sacrifice their sons for it. Presidents since Truman have forgotten this; its why Vietnam was such a fiasco- the American people were never really on board with it- the same with Iraq/ A-stan/ P-stan; the American people are only lukewarm in their support for this war, and yet the President is committing us to what might be another decade of fighting. This doesn't guarantee failure, but makes failure much more likely.

slvemike4u -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 10:52:34 AM)
And yet still wholly different from hiring for profit mercenaries and turning America's conflicts into a profit making enterprise for private business entities.Entities that employ the use of lobbyists and can therefore influence the very decision to enter into a conflict! edited due to poor typing which in turn magnifies and shines a light on my poor spelling :)

Mercnbeth -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 10:53:33 AM)
quote: I think you understood my "shallow analysis" comment. But in case not, the point is that the vast majority of the cost of Iraq was not taking out SH, it was attempting to prevent the chaos in the area that would ensue. A shallow response - How's that working out? I'd also argue that the way Saddam was taken out contributed to the chaos. Hell, Jimmy Carter did a better job taking out the Shah. Sure chaos ensued, but his goal was achieved, he orchestrated taking out the regime in place without a shot. As that example indicates a stated policy to use similar surgical endeavors, with or without involving assassinations, can serve to be a more effective deterrent than any saber rattling. I'd make an argument that less 'hearts & minds' would need a converting epiphany without the locals having to see a massive US military presence occupying their country. To your other point - training. Where did I point to a mercenary force replacing a standing US military, or that military training would end? Are you saying that the existing training is worthless? Currently many of those trainees are gone as soon as they survive their tours. Are you also saying that right now, the best pilots don't bolt for an airline job, or that great thinking military men don't leave after their tour is up? I think the best recruiting job for mercenaries is being done right now with the 'rules of engagement' being employed in Afghanistan. quote: It can be debated whether a standing army or hiring mercenaries is more cost effective on its own merits, without the simplistic "10 or 20 men plus another bid" argument. One thing that can't be debated. Those that sign up as a mercenary know their job going in. However, I must say, I'm impressed by the support of the ongoing wars and maintaining the status quo! Admirable patriotism!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 11:06:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth To your other point - training. Where did I point to a mercenary force replacing a standing US military, or that military training would end? Are you saying that the existing training is worthless? Currently many of those trainees are gone as soon as they survive their tours. Are you also saying that right now, the best pilots don't bolt for an airline job, or that great thinking military men don't leave after their tour is up? I think the best recruiting job for mercenaries is being done right now with the 'rules of engagement' being employed in Afghanistan. No, you misunderstand me. I am addressing strictly the cost to accomplish the same mission of privatization vs a standing military. The existing training is very valuable and my point was that the cost of that valuable training of eventual mercenaries by a standing army has to be partially allocated to the private army when you are doing the "bookkeeping", just as the training commercial pilots received in the military should be accounted for in the social value of the military. Im not sure where the Rules of Engagement are a tool for recruiting mercenaries, they are just a recipe for failure in Afghanistan. I don't think that the response to that failure will be to send mercenaries in. I think the response will eventually have to be what we should be doing now ...fight to win using our strategic advantages... without wasting the lives and money of a half assed approach in the meantime.

popeye1250 -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 11:16:09 AM)
I think those Blackwater contractors in Iraq were making about $20k per month each. Anyone know?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 11:28:06 AM)
quote: Im not sure where the Rules of Engagement are a tool for recruiting mercenaries, they are just a recipe for failure in Afghanistan. I am giving my personal perspective and what would be my reaction to having to be a soldier under those 'rules'. If I had joined the military having the ambition to be, or identified myself as a 'career soldier', I'm gone at the end of my enlistment and signing on board with a mercenary group such as 'Blackwater'. I'm risking my life! I'm not going to volunteer to do it with one hand tied behind my back as these 'rules' require. quote: I don't think that the response to that failure will be to send mercenaries in. I think the response will eventually have to be what we should be doing now ...fight to win using our strategic advantages... without wasting the lives and money of a half assed approach in the meantime. I don't think either party or any administration will ever let our deployed troops do, as you suggest, "fight to win". One of the key reasons for that is because of something brought up - PACS. They contribute to candidates of both parties. It serves them to have an army deployed. PACS contribute more now to insure a stalemate or ongoing deployment than any task assigned contracted group could ever influence. A military PAC would hate this idea. They generate their income by the deployment of hundreds of thousands - not a small mercenary group.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 12:18:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I don't think either party or any administration will ever let our deployed troops do, as you suggest, "fight to win". And I think that it will get to the point where they have no choice, unless of course they take the French alternative.

mnottertail -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 12:26:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I don't think either party or any administration will ever let our deployed troops do, as you suggest, "fight to win". And I think that it will get to the point where they have no choice, unless of course they take the French alternative. But it is a matter of the wars they are in, these are 'political' wars, not wars for cause. Pure ideological politics was what got us in this, not what is right or wrong in the world......not like we were attacked by these fuckers, that's the war we didn't prosecute. Ron

luckydawg -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 12:38:02 PM)
This could be a very interesting discussion, if we can get past the blatant partisanship. Animus, I want to thank you for pointing out that the current model of contrator was used in the Balkans, by president Clinton. If I had pointed that out, a gang of trolls would have attacked. The usualls are trying to say that Bush started the use of contractors, which simply isn't true. (side not to Mnot, Carter is the one who started cutting checks to the Mujahadeen (some of whom later became Al queda, while most became the Northern allaince) not Reagan). But you also are grabbing at Ideology to say that it is since Truman/Korea that war with out declaration by congress began. That is not even close to being reality based. President Washington (whom I consider to be a Founding Father) never got a declaration of war for the Conquest of Ohio. Jefferson never got a declaration to go clean out the barbary Pirates. None of the Indian wars were declared. Adams and Madison also sent out the troops with no Declaration of War. "On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927. The United States' longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of "peace." The Indian Wars comprise at least 28 conflicts and engagements. These began with Europeans immigration to North America, long before the establishment of the United States. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and are generally agreed upon as concluding with the surrender of the Apache chief Geronimo in 1886." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

mnottertail -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 12:43:09 PM)
Uck, (side not to Mnot, Carter is the one who started cutting checks to the Mujahadeen (some of whom later became Al queda, while most became the Northern allaince) not Reagan). Hear you, but as usual, don't believe that is an accurate portrayal: both did fund, agreed. if starting is bad and continuing with much more serious funding and weaponry not...thats a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration since you quote wiki so will I, start reading under the chapter heading, Cold War but that isn't the only source, just a quick one. Ron

luckydawg -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 12:43:16 PM)
OR to put it more visually, out of this list of Wars the USA has fought, only 5 were formally declared. 18th Century American Revolutionary War, 1775 – 1783 Boston campaign, 1775 - 1776 Canadian Theatre, 1775 - 1776 New York and New Jersey campaign, 1776 - 1777 Saratoga Campaign, 1777 Philadelphia Campaign, 1777 - 1778 Western Theatre, 1775 - 1782 Northern Theater, 1778 - 1781 Southern Theatre, 1775 - 1782 Northwest Indian War, 1785 - 1795 Quasi-War, France, 1798 – 1800 [edit] 19th Century First Barbary War, 1801 – 1805 War of 1812, 1812 – 1815 Tecumseh's Rebellion, 1811 - 1813 Lake Champlain Campaign, 1812 - 1814 Niagara Campaign, 1812 - 1814 Detroit Campaign, 1812 - 1814 Chesapeake Campaign, 1813 - 1814 Creek War, 1813 - 1814 Peoria War, 1813 Southern Campaign, Second Barbary War, 1815 First Seminole War, 1817 - 1818 Winnebago War, 1827 Black Hawk War, 1832 First Sumatran Expedition, 1832 Battle of Quallah Battoo, 1832 Second Seminole War, 1835 - 1842 Second Sumatran Expedition, 1838 Bombardment of Quallah Battoo, 1838 Bombardment of Muckie, 1838 Mexican-American War, 1846 – 1848 Texas Campaign, 1846 Bear Flag Revolt, California, 1846 Arizona Campaign, 1846 Mexican Campaign, 1846 - 1848 Navajo Wars, 1846 - 1863 Cayuse War, 1847 - 1855 Apache Wars, 1851 - 1900 Nicaraguan Expedition, 1854 Bombardment of San Juan del Norte, 1854 Kansas War, 1854 - 1860 Raid on Harpers Ferry, 1859 Third Seminole War, 1855 - 1858 Second Opium War, 1856 - 1859 (time span of U.S. involvement) Battle of the Pearl River Forts, 1856 Second Battle of Taku Forts, 1859 Utah War, 1857 American Civil War, 1861 – 1865 Union blockade, 1861 - 1865 Eastern Theater, 1861 - 1865 Western Theater, 1861 - 1865 Lower Seaboard Theater, 1861 - 1865 Trans-Mississippi Theater, 1861 - 1865 Dakota Conflict, 1862 Pacific Coast Theater, 1863 Colorado War, 1863 - 1865 Japanese Conflict, 1863 - 1864 (time span of U.S. involvement) Battle of Shimonoseki Straits, 1863 Shimonoseki Campaign, 1863 - 1864 Formosan Expedition, 1867 Battle of Formosa, 1867 Red Cloud's War, 1866 - 1868 United States expedition to Korea, 1866 - 1871 (time span of U.S. involvement) Battle of Keupsa Gate, 1866 Battle of Gangwha, 1871 Modoc War, 1872 - 1873 Red River War, 1874 - 1875 Black Hills War, 1876 - 1877 Nez Perce War, 1877 Bannock War, 1878 Cheyenne War, 1878 - 1879 Sheepeater Indian War, 1879 Ute War, 1879-1880 Pine Ridge Campaign, 1890-1891 Battle of Sugar Point, 1898 Spanish-American War, 1898 Cuban Campaign, 1898 Puerto Rican Campaign, 1898 Pacific Campaign, 1898 Second Samoan Civil War, 1899 (time span of U.S. involvement) Philippine-American War, 1899 - 1913 Battle of Manila (1899), 1899 Moro Rebellion, 1899 - 1913 Boxer Rebellion, China, 1899 - 1901 Peking Campaign, 1900 [edit] 20th Century Banana Wars, 1907 - 1934 Nicaraguan Conflict, 1907 - 1933 (time span of U.S. involvement) Hunduras Conflict, 1907 - 1933 (time span of U.S. involvement) Guatemalan Conflict, 1907 - 1933 (time span of U.S. involvement) First Panama Conflict, 1908 (time span of U.S. involvement) Cuban Conflict, 1912 (time span of U.S. involvement) Haiti Conflict, 1915 - 1934 (time span of U.S. involvement) First Dominican Republic Conflict, 1917 - 1924 (time span of U.S. involvement) Mexican Revolution, 1914 - 1918 (time span of U.S. involvement) Battle of Veracruz, 1914 Battle of Columbus, 1916 Battle of Carrizal, 1916 Battle of Bear Valley, 1918 Battle of Ambos Nogales, 1918 World War I, 1917 – 1918 (time span of U.S. involvement) European Theatre, 1917 - 1918 First Battle of the Atlantic, 1917-1918 Russian Revolution, 1918 - 1920 (time span of U.S. involvement) Polar Bear Expedition, 1918 - 1919 Siberian Expedition, 1918 - 1920 World War II, 1941 – 1945 (time span of U.S. involvement) Second Battle of the Atlantic, 1941 - 1945 Pacific War, 1941 - 1945 African Theatre, 1942 - 1943 European Theatre, 1942 - 1945 Korean War, 1950 - 1953 South Korean Campaign, 1950 - 1953 North Korean Campaign, 1950 - 1953 Lebanon Conflict, 1958 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Blue Bat, 1958 Cuban Conflict, 1961 (time span of U.S. involvement) Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1961 Vietnam War, 1962 - 1975 (time span of U.S. involvement) Laotian Civil War, 1962 - 1973 Cambodian Civil War, 1969 - 1970 Second Dominican Republic Conflict, 1965 - 1966 Operation Powerpack, 1965 - 1966 Second Korean War, 1966 - 1976 Contra War, El Salvador, 1981 - 1990 Libya Conflict, 1981 - 1989 (time span of U.S. involvement) First Action in the Gulf of Sidra, 1981 Second Action in the Gulf of Sidra, 1986 1986 bombing of Libya, 1986 Third Action in the Gulf of Sidra, 1989 Grenada Conflict, 1983 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Urgent Fury, 1983 Iran–Iraq War, 1987 - 1989 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Earnest Will, 1987 - 1988 Operation Prime Chance, 1987 - 1989 Operation Eager Glacier, 1987 Operation Nimble Archer, 1987 Operation Praying Mantis, 1988 Second Panama Conflict, 1989 - 1990 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Just Cause, 1989 - 1990 Persian Gulf War, Iraq, 1991 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Desert Shield, 1991 Operation Desert Storm, 1991 Iraq Conflict, 1991 - 2003 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Provide Comfort, 1991 - 1996 Operation Northern Watch, 1997 - 2003 Operation Southern Watch, 1992 - 2003 Operation Desert Fox, 1998 Operation Southern Focus, 2002 - 2003 Somali Civil War, 1992 - 1994 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Provide Relief, 1992 Operation Restore Hope, 1992 - 1994 United Nations Operation in Somalia I, 1992 United Nations Operation in Somalia II, 1993 - 1995 First Haitian Rebellion, 1994 (time span of U.S. involvement) Operation Uphold Democracy, 1994 - 1995 Yugoslav wars, 1994 - 1999 (time span of U.S. involvement) Bosnian Conflict, 1994 - 1995 Kosovo Conflict, 1997 - 1999 [edit] 21st Century War on Terrorism, 2001 - present Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan 2001 - present Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines 2002 - present Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa 2002 - present Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003 - present War in North-West Pakistan, 2004 - present Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara 2007 - present Second Haitian Rebellion, 2004 (time span of U.S. involvement) United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, 2004 - present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States To ignore our real history is vey perilous for our survival in the future.

AnimusRex -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 2:52:06 PM)
Luckydawg- I yield to your point- you are correct that most of the combat has been without declarations. I suppose I am thinking of wars proper, not minor skirmishes. But what is fascinating is the Philippine battles, and the Central American wars early in this century. These were classic cases of Imperial overreach, wars fought for no defensive purpose whatsoever. These perfectly illustrate the problem- it would have been difficult to explain to American mothers why their sons were being shipped off to the Philippine jungles to do batle against Muslim insurgents. So difficult, in fact, if these wars had been put to a vote, they likely would not have happened. Franklin Roosevelt wanted to go to war earlier than we did, but he hesitated, knowing the American people didn't really want to go to war against Germany or Japan; even after Pearl Harbor, he resisted asking for a declaration of war against Germany, until after they declared it on us first. And THAT to me is the real point here- that the American people are not on board with another decade of war to build a nation in Afghanistan. No one has really made the case to the American public why this is so vital as to be worth their sons' lives.

luckydawg -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 2:55:38 PM)
I guess I would need a defintion of "wars proper" to respond. Though I do see a defensive purpose to maintaining the Monroe doctrine.

popeye1250 -> RE: Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. (12/11/2009 4:09:50 PM)
Well, if I were in the CIA and in Iraq and about to go out and fuck some people up of course I'd want some Blackwater guys with me! They're all Military Veterans and they know their shit! So, you have to look at it that way too.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625