Grisly killing in Iraq leads to lawsuit (Families suing Blackwater)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/10573467.htm

Families of the civilian contractors killed, burned and strung up on a bridge last March in a grisly display seen round the world are suing the N.C.-based security company that hired them.

The suit says the four men weren't properly armed or trained for their mission in one of Iraq's most dangerous regions. It blames executives of Blackwater USA, headquartered in northeastern North Carolina, for cutting corners to increase profits.

"They knew that they were sending them into the center of Fallujah with very little chance they would come out alive," says the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in state civil court in Raleigh.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these families. Frivolous lawsuit?

[Vincardog]

1. Mercenaries have rights too. Why don't they get themselves a union?

[Solon]

29. Mercs have no rights when killing for money on foriegn soil...

Mercenaries should never be employed EVER!

[saigon68]

41. THESE FUCKERS got exactly what they deserved (graphic)

A television grab shows hands in flames as a body burns next to an attacked vehicle yesterday in the volatile Iraqi town of Falluja April 1, 2004

[bahrbearian]

2. So Bremers Rule # 39 only pertains to Iraqi's ?

[newscott]

3. Now everybody knows

that all good God fearing Republicans would never file a frivolous lawsuit.

It's not good for business, doctors will shutter their offices, dogs and cats will start living together. (Ok, I stole that last one, but you know?) :evilgrin:

[w4rma]

4. Not a frivolous lawsuit. The families are doing the absolute right thing.

They are going right after the people who need to be punished. Unfortunately it'll only lower the already too high incomes of these executives rather than actually punish them (even if they win in a rout).

[hollowdweller]

5. Damn Trial Lawyers!! Can someone ask Bush if he considers this frivolous?

[MSgt213]

19. Frivolous to Bush is anything that effects his and only his wallet.

[RamboLiberal]

13. These guys knew what they were getting in to

and being ex military they damn well knew what equipment they needed and whether it was being provided to them. And with the money they were making they could've bought their own. And they could probably quit if they wanted - course they may have had a hard time finding a ride home.

I keep my sympathy for the grunts who got stuck there lacking equipment because of Rummy and the Repugs. Course if they voted Bush in this last election they have little sympathy for them either.

[w4rma]

14. If they were Republicans it's not likely they knew what they were getting

into. The Repug base is THE target of a *major* brainwashing campaign by the very folks whom they usually most trust.

About these executives who are being sued. You can bet that THEY knew what they were putting their employees into. And their attitude was most likely similar to yours: Not "buyer beware" but "employee beware".

[jdj]

26. Damn why do all the freak companies have to be here?

And that guy who killed the Iraqi soldier after consensual sex? He's from my town.

Lovely.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mike Niendorff]

6. perfect.

Now, let's hear Bush get on the air and tell those families about his new damage-cap proposals. I'm sure they'll love him for it all the more.


MDN

[SuperDem1776]

7. I have sympathy

Those men were hung from bridges. :(

[TahitiNut]

11. There aren't enough trees in Iraq.

[Massachusetts]

15. Diver Down

I agree.

[TahitiNut]

23. Yeah. They'd need about 40,000 trees. Terrible thing to do ...

... to the trees. Better to use bridges.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. Damn. You made me laugh

terrible thread to do it in but the sardonic humor is fitting here given the debate back when this happened as to the nature of mercenaries.

[malaise]

17. And just where were the men of Iraq

and their mothers, wives and children slaughtered? Or do only your men matter?

You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that humanity is humanity. Humanity doesn't belong to Americans and you are entitled to no more rights (or lack thereof) than those you inflict on or deny others.

All slaughter is slaughter, but who on the planet but insular xenephobic people can remain silent about the slaughter of Iraqis in their own land following an invasion which violates international law - the law of god damned humanity. Humanity cannot be compartmentalized into us or them - we are all human whether or not you hate all but your own. If killing is evil then what is going on in Iraq is the quintessence of evil.

So those four men were hung from bridges - hanged actually - now where have all the thousands of Iraqis in their homeland been slaughtered. If you haven't asked yourself that question when you thought about those four men, then do not have a clue about humanity. Thoughts like these make me petrified at the thought that I share this planet with such thoughtless people.

How myopic is your thinking?

[tblue37]

43. They weren't killed that way.

They were shot all to hell while still driving in the car. Then their bodies were dragged out and stomped, chopped at, burned, and hung. And they were "hung," not "hanged." A person is hanged until he is dead, not hung until he is dead. But if it is an already dead body, it is hung, because it has become an inanimate object.

[malaise]

45. Valid point

re hanged/hung.
Everytime I see that photo, I ask how humanity could reach his point.
He is just another kid, like the babies in Asia except that his scars and pain are a deliberate act of wicked, wicked men and women.

[leftchick]

44. they were already DEAD....

when they were dragged and hung. They were corpses at that point and didn't feel a freakin thing. I have much more sympathy for those innocents killed and wounded daily by the US like this little guy...

[Cha]

8. I have "sympathy"...I just wish enough of these

"rock-hard stupid" bush chauvinists would see the friggin light.

[yardwork]

9. Money is the only thing that matters to these thugs

I hope they get sued and have to go out of business. Of course they will be replaced by a dozen more companies just like them.

[TahitiNut]

10. Privateers are hung. It's been that way for 400 years.

They can take their Letters of Marque and use 'em for toilet paper.

[DS1]

12. Oh Bullshit

These dudes were either ex-spec ops or dumb enough to put their lives on the line untrained in the name of the almighty dollar.

Unlike our troops over there, they could have quit right at Charlotte "International" Airport and never gone to Iraq.

Sorry, no sympathy here :nopity:

[vitointn]

16. Re: Oh Bullshit

I'm with DS and the majority of you's...these guys were all mercs, all ex-military (one from right here in Clarksville, TN), in search of the almighty dollar.

While I sympathize with their families for the loss, it is not worthy of a lawsuit...it was a KNOWN DANGEROUS SITUATION.

[pinniped]

18. They were armed...

but someone de-armed them.

[MSgt213]

20. First, we started this war. Second, we had a choice we didn't have to

start this war. Third, once the war was started others saw it as an opportunity to make money. Fourth, you reap what you sow.

[bobbyboucher]

21. Talk about frivoulous, they were mercs for god's sake.

"Our mercenary sons and daughters were killed while being paid to kill people during the occupation of a country, we want twenty million".

Fuck that.

[Jesus H. Christ]

22. Too bad they can't both lose.

nt

[leesa]

24. I have no sympathy for the families or the corporation. They all saw $$$$

and went for it. Too bad it happened to be a war zone.

[MADem]

27. I have sympathy for the families and the dead

I sense that these guys got into it thinking that it was GOOD money, that they could support their families, and that the fucking government had a plan...it might be a little hairy, but it won't be THAT bad. Problem was, the fucking government had a BAD plan, and they paid for it with their lives.

It is actually cheaper, from a personnel standpoint, to hire highly paid mercenaries in any number of positions, from security to base support services. You aren't paying for massive amounts of training (initial entry, intermediate, advanced) where you get no payback for your expenditure, you aren't paying out for family housing, masses of infrastructure support, and the requirement to contribute to a retirement system. The upfront costs are higher, but when the crisis ends, you can dump them immediately and unceremoniously and they have nothing to say about it.

Also, it comes out of a different pile of cash, so you keep your "personnel" costs low and that makes Congress rather ignorantly happy....

[RamboLiberal]

30. Blackwater is still trolling for resumes for missions in Iraq

http://blackwaterusa.com/ - they call it "high threat protection mission".

U.S. Spec Op troops train at Blackwater's facilities.

I have a great fear over how much of the U.S. military forces are being turned in to mercenaries, and how much we employ mercenaries from outfits like Blackwater to do the dirty jobs in other countries where we have no business interfering.

[Solon]

31. Don't know about you...

But I put these guys in the same category as Hired Hitmen for the Mafia, they have mouths to feed to, don't they?

[MADem]

35. I don't put them in the same category

You take a guy who VOLUNTEERED to serve his country, to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States--not a draftee, a volunteer. He volunteered back during the Cold War, when we had to keep the "balance of power" and prevent the dreaded Russkies from coming through the Fulda Gap. He was motivated by love of country and patriotism, not riches.

This person does his time, moves up the ranks, wants to make a career of the Service. Maybe he doesn't do so well on the advancement exam, maybe his specialty/MOS/NEC is deleted, realigned, or he becomes the victim of "force shaping." Maybe he's lucky, is able to retire, gets out at 20 with high hopes of doing something else, and goes home to his hometown to learn all the jobs have been shipped to China. He's got a wife, kids, a security specialty, and the local police force ain't hiring, and they've got all they need on the night shift down at the mall. The guy needs to put some of that there food on his family...

Sure, you have some guys who are thrillseekers, but I'll bet the vast majority of them are just looking for a paycheck.

The problem with Iraq lies with the policymakers, not the expendable, "fungible" guys at the bottom of the totem pole. They are just instruments of American policy; the bastards playing the tune sleep in soft beds and eat rich food, and watch cable news by the banks of the Potomac.

[Solon]

53. So killing for a paycheck alone is different from my example how? n/t

[MADem]

56. Because you equate the role of organized crime

...with the role of the military. Sure, I do not like what the weecowboy is doing, how he is using the military to achieve his objectives, but that does not make the military, or the civilian components thereof, in and of itself, an evil entity. We were damn glad to have a motivated military, which was motivated despite a mandated draft, following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Blame the bums who issue the orders, not the people following them. And understand that there are a lot of people who will do whatever they have to do to support their families, even risk their lives. I don't think there are many guys working over in the sandbox for Blackwater who would not gladly quit if they could have steady, reliable, decent paying jobs with health care and a pension plan, where they could go home at night, have supper with their loved ones, mow the lawn at the weekend, and watch an occasional sports event on TV. Most of these guys don't want to be heroes or Rambos, they just want to take care of their loved ones. They are seduced by the promise of large paychecks, and they don't have the skill set to earn even half that money in any other position.

[Solon]

59. Mercs have a choice, their business is death...

I don't blame our SOLDIERS over there, I blame the Corporations and their subjects in our government for this power grab. But Mercs HAVE A CHOICE TO NOT PARTICIPATE. I never equated organized crime with the military, only with the government, and its pointless anyways, would you have an objection if an Iraqi Insurgent group made a higher bid and hired Blackwater as a contractor for "Security". After all the guys over there are only there for the money, what difference is it to them.

[MADem]

65. You really think these guys would be over there if they could

...find a decent, well paying job here at home?

Sure, there will always be the odd psychopath who would get a rush from the danger, but most of these guys just need work in Bush's America. They have college tuitions to pay, mortgages, car payments, groceries, their kids need braces and doctor visits, and no one is hiring. "It'll just be for six months, honey, then we'll have enough money to see us through the next year and a half..."

I don't blame the woman who can't find a job for turning to prostitution to feed her kids. That's essentially what these guys are doing--prostituting themselves. You do what you have to do to survive.

[Solon]

73. Bad argument...

With proper safeguards, a prostitute is harming no one. A Merc murders for money, that simple.

[MADem]

79. These guys are hired to provide high threat security

...not initiate battles. If they are shot at, they fire back. These are the guys protecting Alawi, et. al., providing cover for civilian convoys, and doing fixed security work at oil installations. They aren't running around looking for people to shoot. They don't take the job with any INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER, but they understand that the use of lethal force falls within the job description.

[Solon]

81. Basically doing jobs that our soldiers should be doing...

but the government likes wasting money on high priced security guards, who happen to have no restrictions on them like the Geneva Convention, or Rules of Engagement. Considering WHO the government is hiring, I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing more than is mentioned in the media. They apparently have little respect for human life in any regard, just like the "Interrogation Specialists" that were contracted by CACI at Abu Graib. And think about this, next year, these same guys could be hired by a government that is fighting against us, like Iran, after all, not all these PMCs are American or British, what's to stop them? You don't have a problem with them protecting Iran, with deadly force if need be, against our own troops, do you?

[MADem]

85. They are CHEAPER than soldiers

...because they don't need the months of training, as they've already gotten it. Blackwater gives them a couple of weeks of refresher and off they go. When the job is done, they are done--no pensions, no medical, no nothing--they are off the payroll. The government is actually saving money by using them. It's hard for people who don't know the hidden costs of training in terms of instruction, billeting, pay, family support, infrastructure, and so on to see this, but it is true--we would not be doing it otherwise.

If you actually WANT soldiers to perform this mission, you are asking for a draft, sooner rather than later.

Don't misunderstand me--I don't like Bush's mercenary policy. But I do not blame the mercenary, I blame BUSH. If the jobs were not on offer, then there would not be an issue. Who's paying for these guys? OUR GOVERNMENT. Who is responsible? OUR GOVERNMENT.

As for Iran, I doubt they'd pay as well, or trust foreign fighters from outside the shi'a muslim sphere without a carefully crafted alliance, most likely with an Arab nation. Even that would be problematic, as we are rapproaching with countries, such as Libya, who might be useful to them, and repeatedly warning Syria about the dangers of intervention. I know Iran quite well, if they did any hiring, they would not hire Brits or Americans in any numbers--they aren't stupid. It would be far too easy for us to slip an operative in amongst those looking for a payday, and they know it.

[Solon]

87. Actually I mentioned that...

Its not beyond the realm of possibility that South African exiles(aparthied supporters) could be hired by them. We hired them after all, and they have no compunction about using tactics that are considered illegal and war crimes. Though I will concede that we would probably win any bid "war" between us and Iran, but the point still stands, why trust them to protect our interests if they can be bought in the first place? Also, you didn't answer my question about why risk American Soldier lives on ill trained truck drivers and mercs who don't care?

[MADem]

97. I do not understand your question

We are risking the lives of American soldiers because of a guy named BUSH, who started this war. The mercenaries are over there because BUSH can't yet get Congress to authorize a DRAFT--even the GOP does not want to go down that road, though it may be unavoidable. The mercenary forces are a CHEAPER OPTION than trying to expand the Armed Forces to any considerable extent, because the bonuses would have to be gargantuan to get anyone to volunteer in this environment. Even with stop loss and IRR recalls, and the reactivation of retirees, they still are not making the numbers. Unless we can find a way out of there, and soon, a draft IS coming.

The fault lies with BUSH. Not with the mercenaries, not with the contracting agencies. Not with these dead guys. Not with their families. The mercenaries simply saw an opportunity, and took it. If the opportunity were not presented to them, there would be no issue. Who presented the opportunity? BUSH. This is HIS WAR, his failure, his stupidity. And we get the bill.

[Solon]

100. Oops...question in post #84, even I get confused by what I post....

Yes Bush put the guys in danger, first and foremost, but the Cheaper Option as you put it, also puts are troops in bigger danger than they would have had to face if they were properly prepared. We will have a draft, I don't doubt that, and there will be an increase in fragging, both of officers and mercs, don't doubt that either. Do you have any idea how much resentment many of the troops have for hired guns? "Why the fuck should they get paid 10 times more than me doing the exact same job?" is a common sentiment. How much longer do you think before a lot of these mercs have "accidents". Bush created a lose/lose situation all around, and it will come home to roost for him, I don't doubt that either. BTW: I do put blame on PMCs, at least partially, they are capitalizing, in the most direct way, on other people's misery, and support Bush and the lies big time.

[MADem]

105. I didn't spend more than two decades

serving my country not to understand these issues, indeed, I have had to deal with them more often than I liked, but I also understand the dollars and cents behind the decision-making processes that led to them. I could be making a bundle right now working for one of those contractors, in fact, I was offered a great paying job by a retiree that I used to work for who is running one of them, but I declined the offer--I just didn't have the stomach for it, frankly, as I oppose this damn war. Having said that, I am not going to denigrate someone who DOES take the cash, because little Susie got into Harvard (such pride, such joy!), or little Billy needs braces or physical therapy, or Grandma needs round the clock care in the nursing home and the money is just not there otherwise. I am not facing these sorts of issues, and I just can't judge people who are trying to provide for their families in the best way they know how. I can only act for myself.

As for the PMCs, our government has authorized them. Our government solicited the bids, wrote the contract specifications and signed the documents authorizing these guys to do what they do. Our government determined the rules under which they operate. We cannot lose sight of that important fact. None of this would be happening were it not for the executive branch of our government, with the imprimatur of the Congress. They are the ones who need to be held accountable, not the dead, not their families who are angered, and not the ones who need to put a paycheck in the bank to support their loved ones.

I totally understand the anger, it's just where it is directed that I find deeply troubling.

[Solon]

108. Why so troubling...

As I said in my first post on this thread, the guys didn't deserve death, they should get life in prison. Why is taking the cash to be a Merc so different than being a hitman? Just because one is legal and the other is not does not excuse the fact that both are wrong. I listed one of the biggest reasons I hate mercs further down the page. If a guy has to put himself into a situation where he may have to kill someone to send little Susie into college, then it is blood money that she uses. I applaud your decision not to go in a warzone for the almighty dollar, I just don't understand you defending people who would be willing to kill for money. You were in the military, what would you say to my friend about his buddies, that the guys that killed them were only doing a job so Susie can go to college?

[tblue37]

64. I saw a report on TV a few months ago

about people who apply for these jobs. Some were former military, some not. Not all of the jobs were in security, either. Some were applying to be truck drivers, mechanics, cooks, etc.

I saw a couple of apparent Rambos among the former troops, though only a couple. Even among the former troops, and most definitely among the others, it was obvious that they were just looking desperately for a job.

I think that many of them don't think beyond the "job with very good pay" aspect at all. They don't think, "I am going over there to help my government kill innocent people and steal their resources." Heck, if you listen to them talk, it is evident that those who are not former soldiers don't really even come to grips psychologically with the fact that they are going into a war zone. When asked if they were scared about the risk, they were almost as innocent (in the sense of ignorant and trusting) as toddlers.

Even if they understood in their brains that there was a chance of getting shot, beheaded, or blown up, it was evident that they had not really assimilated that information. They were all about "magical thinking," of the sort that children do when they close their own eyes so you can't see them.

And of the former troops who had been to Iraq already, there was the desperate sense that they had been discharged, come home, and found there was simply no place for them. They said things like, "At least I will be back where my friends are," or "It's the only thing I am trained for. I don't know what else I can do."

Now, I am not saying I approve, or that I think they were right. I'm just saying that the ones I saw were evidently not evil people chomping at the bit to go over and murder Iraqi children. They were desperate people looking for a job.

A few of them (not the former troops, of course) were cut from the applicant pool, usually for physical reasons. One black woman who was cut (about 35 years old) cried because she had seen this as her chance to make enough money to offer her kids a better life.

Frankly, I see people who grab at the chance of such a job as being pretty much the same as young people who join the military to get training, money for education, or just a job, because there is nothing for them here at home.

Maybe I am more sympathetic than most because my nephew, who joined the Army for no other reason than to get training and money for college, spent a year over in Mosul and had several close calls when he was being shot at. Also, I have a young friend (whom I have never met) in Tikrit who also joined up for no other reason than to have a job, training, and eventually money for college. My other nephew (the first one's older brother) also signed up for those very reasons. But he signed up before we went into Iraq, and he did his overseas duty in Korea. He got the training he went in for and now has a job because of that training. He also is just a year away from a business degree, paid for by his GI Bill. The younger one is in college in Tennessee, which is precisely why he joined the service. Both got out last May. Unfortunately, both are susceptible to IRR call-up. We worry about that constantly, of course.

[MADem]

66. My goodness, if only I could have made my point as well as you

...just did. That's the sense of what I have been trying to say, but you did a much better job of it than I did!

[tblue37]

80. MADem,

Are you the MADem from Smirking Chimp? If so, hi--howyadoin'?

As for the reason I could make that point, I think it's just actual experience. I saw those applicants being interviewed in that report. No one who saw it could think they were looking at evil people who were eager to go over and kill innocent people. It was obvious that they were deluded and didn't really understand what they were getting into, but most of them were just desperate people looking for a job that paid decent wages--something they couldn't find here at home.

Similarly, I know my nephew had no desire to go to Iraq and disagreed vehemently with Bushco's policies. He and his brother (and my young unmet friend in Tikrit) all voted ABB. They all absolutely hate the idea that we invaded a sovereign country and that we are killing the very people we claim to be liberating. On the other hand, the two who landed in Iraq sure as heck don't want to be killed, and in a situation where it's kill or be killed, they would fight back, of course. My nephew was lucky, and so far the boy in Tikrit has been lucky, because they didn't have to shoot anyone. But the one in Tikrit could still find himself in such a situation.

I am not saying that there are not adrenaline junkies and Rambos, both among the troops and among the mercenaries. I am just saying that those who paint all of the troops and the mercs with the same broad brush are not being fair.

Oh, and let me tell you all something about the boy in Tikrit.

Last Christmas, his father had to contact his congressman because the boy was being yanked around. First he was promised a Christmas visit home, then it was denied for some flimsy reason. Finally, with the help of his congressman, he got to go home and spend 2 weeks with his family. On the day he was to leave to return to Iraq, his father dropped dead of a massive heart attack. The boy was given an extension on his leave (compassion leave), but then when he was supposed to go back, his only sister was involved in a serious car wreck. He asked for another extension, but it was denied He couldn't just leave his mom alone with his sister still in the ICU, and no way to know if she would make it, so he just didn't go back.

That made him AWOL, of course. But when he did finally return, they looked the other way. On the one hand, I suspect at least someone was being reasonable and compassionate. On the other, they might just have needed his warm body on duty rather than in the brig.

My point is that there are many people on this board, and on Smirking Chimp, where I also post, who will say that he deserved what happened to him because he should have known better than to join the Army in the first place. The fact that he joined because he was a working class kid with few or no other options for a decent job, training, or education doesn't matter at all to them.

And again, I see it as being pretty much the same for the non-Rambo people who sign up with the companies doing business in Iaq. Our all-volunteer troops are, in a sense, mercenaries, too. Most of them sign up for the paycheck and the benefits.

BTW, does the blanket condemnation of all the employees of these companies extend to the Turkish truck drivers or other foreign workers who were beheaded for working for such companies? They also take those jobs because they can't find jobs that pay well at home, and they have families to feed. How about the Iraqis who are also killed for taking jobs with foreign companies or with the occupation, not because they approve of the occupation, but because they have to feed their families?

[Solon]

84. I condemn armed mercs, not simple truck drivers...

but our soldiers are FORCED there, regardless of how enlistment took place. To be honest, I would rather go to jail than serve in Iraq, but that is just me. Also, I object to the use of ANY private contractors that are doing these jobs, even simple truck drivers. If US soldiers are ambushed down the road, can the soldiers fighting and dying down there rely on the truck drivers, or even the Mercs protecting them, to help. Or are they simply going to turn around and let the soldiers die? That is a MAJOR problem, and one of the reasons I think no private contractors should be there at all. Not to mention the fraud*cough* Halliburton *cough* in just feeding our troops, imagine the OTHER things going on that are not reported.

[MADem]

88. I'm not the same one, but we are on the same page

I must admit I am troubled by those who think that anyone who volunteered to serve their nation out of a sense of duty, loyalty, patriotism, and a dash of nationalistic pride is somehow painted as a babykiller, an evil arm of a vicious regime. I didn't sign up to kill babies, I signed up to defend my country, which has given me so much, and to which I owed a debt of gratitude. I love my country, I believe in the promise of America, I am saddened by the insane administration running it, and I work for the day when sanity returns to our leadership. I am also bothered by the theme that all military personnel are Republicans. We aren't. Demographically, we reflect the nation in many respects, but with more minority representation and less female representation.

These issues of war and service are terribly complex, and so many people get caught up in situations not of their own making. That young fellow you describe who had to choose between his family and the Army, and chose to stay by his sister's side, represents the BEST, not the worst, of our country. I'm glad someone made that AWOL disappear--it should have never been an issue to begin with, but sadly, it shows how close we are getting to a military draft, if they are bullying kids who have an immediate family member in ICU to get back to the front.

When the Hun comes over the wall, we want our servicemembers to be ready to defend us. We shouldn't denigrate them for executing orders--we'd want them to be quick as lightning if Anytown, USA was under attack.

It's not the fault of those who go and do, who serve, when the orders they are given are screwed up and stupid. If we change out the crew giving the orders, the problem goes away.

[Solon]

70. Here's a leader among mercs...

a FUCKING arms trafficker, this is sickening...

Occupation authorities in Iraq have awarded a $293 million contract effectively creating the world's largest private army to a company headed by Lieutenant Colonel Tim Spicer, a former officer with the Scots Guard, an elite regiment of the British military, who has been investigated for illegally smuggling arms and planning military offensives to support mining, oil, and gas operations around the world. On May 25, the Army Transportation command awarded Spicer's company, Aegis Defense Services, the contract to coordinate all the security for Iraqi reconstruction projects.
(snip)

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11350

[NYC]

42. Hitmen also have families and mouths to feed.

That's no excuse.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

48. Not just an issue of being cheaper

It is my understanding that because they are technically part of the military, these mercs aren't subject to pesky little things like the Geneva Convention or the military justice system. Specifically, I'm remembering some cases in the Balkans where mercs were busy raping prepubescent girls, and the military claimed they couldn't do anything about it, and the contractor just made it go away. There's also a case pending about a couple mercs in Afghanistan who were illegally detaining and torturing people.

[MADem]

58. I think you mean to say NOT part of the military

....and your point, in the weecowboy's administration, is quite valid. It's like that old "Mission: Impossible" show with Peter Graves--at the end of the opening segment, the tape would self-destruct after the mystery voice told the operatives that the Secretary would disavow any knowledge of their actions.

That has not always been the case, though. Oftentimes, someone who is not qualified for military service due to law (age restrictions, particularly) will have the skill sets needed, and can contribute to a military effort. We were grateful to have these people during WW2.

My point is that the way these mercenaries are used is established by the administration. They aren't freelancers, they have a clear understanding of what they are being paid to do. And that understanding comes from DIRECT ORDERS, top-down. The administration directs their activities, the administration should be held accountable with regard to how they are used.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

32. it's immoral for corporations to entice people to risk it all

it's not illegal though.
These corporations lure victims of our country's bad economy into harms way with the promise of finally getting some "good money".
It's really sad when you think about it.
People who would normally never hurt anyone end up going for the carrot.
Some of these men leave their families behind and whatever lower paying job they had just for the hope of financial independence.

It's not much different than luring the young and impressionable who are less financially well off into doing porno.
People sometimes make the wrong choices when it comes to getting big money.

Look at the bad choice our so called "leader" has made trying to get even richer than he already is.
His insatiable craving for more and more money is the reason the United States invaded and occupied a country that posed no threat to us or to anyone else.
But we citizens actually allowed him to pull it off.
We didn't holler "no" loud enough.

it's time for us all to speak up as a group and make sure our voices are not ignored.

I understand the distress of the families who lost their loved ones and can't get over the fact that their loved ones were the unlucky ones who didn't make it and didn't bring home that cash. I'm sure now alot of them realize just how bad a decision their now dead loved ones made.
And now they're left with nothing.

These greedy corporations should definitely compensate the families(something at least).
After all these greedy corporate bastards indirectly deceived their workers and asked them to do something they wouldn't do themselves.

edited for spelling.

[Solon]

28. No sympathy for the Company, little for the families...

If the company was cutting corners to save a buck, fine, through the bastards in jail for life, accessories to murder. The mercs in question were fucking MERCS, they deserve NO sympathy, and their families should have tried to talk reason into them so they wouldn't have gone. Did the mercs deserve death, no of course not, they should have gotten life in prison for just being there, as privateers. Why the FUCK this is legal to begin with just boggles the mind. I thought this shit was outgrown in the 19th century.

[MADem]

33. It is certainly not new

In WW2, the Merchant Marine were considered entirely civilian. They didn't get any affiliated status until years after the war. They were generously paid, so much so that many American Sailors griped, especially when some of the MMs didn't want to take the rough convoys.

American mercs also fought in the Spanish Civil War, and were all over South and Central America, as well as China, at various times in our history. The Brits hired German mercenaries as far back as the Revolutionary War.

Mercenaries are nothing new, they turn up in one form or another in every conflict. The only difference between the old days and nowadays is that more people are aware of them.

[Solon]

54. And its an acceptable practice because of its history?

Yeah, American Mercs fought all over Central and South America, in charge or training death squads that killed hundreds of thousands. Mercenaries have burned villages in Africa, killing men, women, and children, hell they even ended up with contracts to Iraq, what a surprise. Also, those weren't mercs in the Spanish Civil War, they were volunteers for a cause against fascism, I'm sure some were in it for the money, but most weren't. I believe that the Mercant Marine was NOT armed, so by definition cannot be mercs. Armed "Security" details, or armed truck drivers in Iraq are mercs. Think about Magdeburg, that is my view of mercs, they are some of the worst scum of the Earth.

[MADem]

57. All I am saying is that the concept is not new

...and when we view the war as "just" we tend not to complain about it--in fact, the concept is quite laudible when the nation approves of the war, as those who do not qualify for military service because of age or other impediment are often used in a civilian capacity.

Rather than focus on the INSTRUMENTS (the mercenaries and soldiers) of war, we really are better off focusing on the bastards who are giving the orders, the ones who are playing the tune and directing the action. If they get the axe, the war of choice ceases, and the mercenaries go away.

The present leadership created the environment that resulted in the employment of these people. Rather than blame them for accepting a generous paycheck, we should be blaming the people who are enticing them to risk their lives to buy groceries for their families.

[Solon]

60. I will never equate Mercs with our Soldiers, that is the worst...

insult to our soldiers that I could imagine, I support our TROOPS not hired guns. I blame the government and corporations profiting from this, and ANYONE else profiting from this endeavor, period.

[MADem]

63. You have your point of view, and I have mine

A mercenary supporting a just war, who works for a private firm because he or she is ineligible for military service due to age or other failure to qualify, serves a useful purpose in the defense of our nation. You won't change my mind on that score. Here are a few that did a helluva job for us: http://historynet.com/ahi/bl_flying_tigers/

I blame the leadership, not the ground pounders, be they military or civilian. If profiteering is taking place, it is the role of the government to stop it. The fish rots from the head.

[Solon]

67. Regardless of the history of a FEW notable groups...

I still stand by my argument, and to create a new one. Would you trust a South African Afrikaaners who was known to burn whole villages to the ground with your life as an American Soldier. I sure as hell wouldn't, so why defend them, they are a DANGER to national security, NOT a benefit. Outsourcing of this scale is dangerous, no matter who does it, and many of these "soldiers" aren't fighting for country or ideals, but for the almighty dollar. You call that loyalty?

[MADem]

68. Then direct your ire at those that hire them

You are blaming the mercenary, but that is like blaming a dog for barking--it is WHAT THEY DO. The issue with them is not always loyalty (especially with foreign nationals), it is payment made, value received. Loyalty is not relevant to the issue. They are paid to do a job. They know that if they do it well, they have a good reference for their next job. If they do it poorly, they could die.

Your anger should be directed at the administration, for, if not for their policies, those civilian fighters would not be employed. Instead, you expect these people to forgo a hefty paycheck, to let their families suffer, when they have an opportunity to support them. You can't eat principle, and you can't clothe yourself with righteousness. You can't fill baby's bottle with political viewpoints. These people need jobs, and Bush is hiring. It's very easy to stand on principle when your children are fed, it is quite another thing when the bills need to be paid and you are responsible for paying them.

Put the onus where it belongs. Blame the guy who puts them on the payroll. The mercenaries are not the problem--the guy who hires them is.

[Solon]

69. Actually the PMCs are probably a bigger problem here...

If not Iraq it would be another conflict in the world, but the excuse of just doing your job still doesn't cut it. Personally, I think every privateer from the Owners of PMCs on down to the merc, and the ones who hire them, should be put in prison, for a very long time. Glorifed hitmen are not exempt from my ire, but neither are the regimes that hire them, and there are plenty. PMCs and there employees should be put out of business entirely. You know, I'm poor, why don't I just whore myself out as a hitman, I mean, what's the difference if I whack someones husband or wife for them and get payed for it, its a paycheck(or cash) that I need.

[MADem]

71. Your argument is fallacious on a number of levels

There are laws on the books against murder, thus, being a hitman is not the same as being a government contracted worker in a government sanctioned war. You can make the moral argument, granted, but the moral argument is not supported by existing law.

Again, your ire needs to be directed at the entity that makes this situation a legal and accepted one. You need to change the existing law, and the way you start down that road is to change the folks who are making the laws.

[Solon]

75. I was talking about morally mostly...

basically your saying anything goes where money is concerned, I cannot abide by that rule, it is not only morally repugnant to me, but it endangers our soldiers lives as well that makes it bad policy.

[MADem]

77. It's like the argument about freedom fighters

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I understand fully that your concerns are based on the moral argument, but all I am saying is that your ire is misdirected. You say you have a problem with mercenaries, yet you call the mercenaries who served in Spain "volunteers" who fought fascism. They weren't volunteers, they were mercenaries, at least that is the way Franco viewed them. They did not have the imprimatur of our government, who readily disavowed any knowledge of their actions. You freely change the label when you agree with the cause, and that is disingenous. If you dislike the concept of mercenary armies because of issues of loyalty and morality, you can't cherry pick.

My point, yet again, is that if you find the practice morally repugnant, your anger should be directed at the entity that makes the practice both legal and enticing to those who need work.

And I am NOT saying "anything goes where money is concerned"--all I am saying is it is the rare person who will not do anything and everything they can to keep their family free from hunger, thirst or exposure to the elements. It is a basic desire to support one's loved ones that motivates most of these mercenaries. And our government says it is legal to hire them.

So blame the government!

[Solon]

78. By definition, Mercs are hired and prime motivator is money...

My ire isn't misdirected, because I refuse to absolve these "people" from their responsibilities. A Mercenary is a certain class of warrior, a mercenary is, by definition, a soldier for hire/fortune, whereas a freedom fighter or terrorist can be more ambigious. This is similar to the "just following orders" defense, and is unacceptable. I direct my ire at both these foot soldiers and the ones who hire them, I do loathe the governments, including my own, that hire them, but I would never let these "Soldiers of Fortune" off scott free. I would not want to live next to one, and I certainly would not want serve next to one.

[MADem]

83. OK, then you have to be fair

...and call the volunteers in Spain what they were--mercenaries. They involved themselves in a fight against a government not their own, they worked, for pay, for a foreign outfit, without the sanction of their own governments.

But on a different tack, whose to say that some of the people over there have not bought Bush's line of bullshit, about rape rooms, WMD, and so forth? Hell, half the country bought that argument. There could well be a few mercenaries over there who are doing it out of a misguided sense of patriotism, packaged up by the GOP, in addition to those who are economically motivated.

You can't parse the issue, though, and say that if you like the cause, mercenaries are a-OK, but if you don't like it, taking money for force protection and augmentation is somehow wrong.

[Solon]

86. Actually, they didn't...

The rightful government of Spain at the time was the Democratically elected Republicans. So they were there to fight for a government. Also, I see nothing in any information I have that they became rich from the endevour. Did they all have pure motives, no of course not, but it is still a far cry from the hundred thousand dollar soldiers for hire that we have now. Is what they did illegal, actually it was in many of their countries. The point is the prime motivator, if I, for example, decided to go fight with leftist guerrilas against a fascist regime in South America for example, taking no more than I needed to survive, volunteering, not hired, and fighting a cause I believe in, am I a mercenary, or a freedom fighter?

[MADem]

92. You just asked the eternal question....

When is a mercenary a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?

And you almost answered it. Clearly, you have a problem with the MONETARY aspect of it all. What if these guys guarding Alawi and the other members of the provisional government were volunteers who offered their services for free, because they believed the Bush line that Iraq will be democratic? Are they still evil? Or are they simply misguided?

The point is, these national security decisions--who we engage, when we engage, why we engage, and most importantly, HOW we engage--are NOT made by those on the ground. They are made in Washington, DC and Crawford, TX. Railing against these guys in the field, and blaming them instead of the administration, is as effective as spitting in the wind.

Your arguments approach those of the Campaign Against Arms Trade with regard to the use of mercenaries. But their very use is determined by governments , not individuals who offer their services to these private agencies doing the dirty work.

[Solon]

96. Actually my biggest problem is part money...

and also part moral. Mercenaries do not, as a general rule, hold themselves to any oath or service greater than themselves. They are hired by PMCs who then turn to various governments around the world and negotiate contracts for services rendered. I rail against this, even if fruitless, because it is wrong, plain and simple. I also rail against Bush for the War to begin with, and the fact that he is trying to privatize the military as much as possible is so disturbing, I don't know what to think anymore.

Another thing that is somewhat disturbing is that they do not have to follow rules of war. The interrigators at CACI have not been prosecuted for their involvement in the torture of POWs at Abu Graib, even though some US soldiers were. The reason is because there are no rules or laws governing PMCs and the mercs they hire. How much of a danger is that to our security, is it worth it to save a few dollars here and there, and yet put our troops in more danger, because the Iraqi Insurgents will begin to lump them in with mercs. Think about the reverse position, would you really care that the guy driving a truck, at the employ of the same government that killed your family, is only a civilian? Or would you lop off his head anyways?

[MADem]

101. Why do you focus on the mercenaries, though?

I don't know if your remarks about them are accurate. Sure, they are there for the money, but their motivations beyond that can only be answered by asking them. I'm sure there are some old coots out there who actually believe the Bush line, some who think they are doing good by "promoting democracy", even if they are misguided in their thought process, and some who feel they are doing their patriotic duty.

What bothers me is that you stop with the dead guys,and those at the bottom of the pecking order. You seem to believe that if they only had some unique moral courage, if they all stood up and refused to participate, the problem would go away. No, it won't...someone else who can't find a job will be hired in their place. If we don't find them here (and in this economy, we will, no problem) we'll find them in the UK, from the retired and demobbed SAS assets, or from Canada, or from a host of other nations.

As for the rules of war, again--LOOK TO THE ADMINISTRATION. They write the contracts, they coordinate hiring with the private contractors, THEY MAKE THE RULES. It's simply counterproductive to blame the people at the bottom of the ladder for doing what they are hired to do. Blame the boss who issues the orders.

Again, mercenaries are not roaming Iraq shooting the joint up. It may sound good, but it ain't so. They have specialized assignments, and in many cases, are more vulnerable to kidnapping because they don't want to (or are not offered the opportunity to) live behind the revetments in slightly safer, though more primitive, forward operating bases. And CACI and Blackwater are different entities, with different missions, paid for out of different operating funds. When you get into black ops, that's a totally different situation. Regardless, who is accountable??? BUSH, yet again.

But let's assume your assertion is correct--that mercenaries ARE roaming about, killing people willy-nilly. Who can stop it? BUSH. Who authorized this alleged tactic? BUSH. Who is RESPONSIBLE? Bush.

If we take our eyes off the big picture, and spend our time complaining about the small fry in this war, we may as well give up any hope of taking our country back. The right wing will win, because we lack the discipline to focus on the responsible parties, and instead paint every American participant--whether willing, unwilling, in it for the money, or whatever--in this nasty war with the same brush.

It's all about the chain of command. The commander in chief is responsible and accountable--and he needs to know that we understand this, and we demand that he answer.

[Solon]

104. I don't stop at them...

The small fry concern me, Bush is a fucking douchebag, flaming bag of diarretic shit, who deserves whatever the Gods think appropriate as punishment. I blame him for putting people in place that have no business being there, HOWEVER, the blame should not stop there, it goes down the line of the war profiteers, from price Gouging Halliburton, to CACI, and Blackwater as well, all the way down to their employees. I have never said that I didn't want Bush to pay for his crimes, he should, but that doesn't excuse the behavior of the guys below him as well.

Also, I just want to point out that I never said that these guys were going around shooting people at random, just that many of them wouldn't have a problem with it if they got paid to do it. I mentioned what mercenaries, many of them veterans, have done in other conflicts, village burnings(Afrikaaners) and death squads(Colombians), these are facts, and the same guys are in Iraq. We don't know everything that's happening there, at best its chaos. These employees aren't a bunch of innocent patriotic Americans that you label them to be, some are, no doubt about that, but many are Battle Hardened troops of some of the worst fighting of the 20th century, where the blood of innocents spilled freely. Hell many of them could be considered stateless, at best. Why they are even allowed to walk the Earth as free men is beyond me. But there they are, in Iraq, doing Gods know what.

[MADem]

106. All I can tell you is look to the administration

They are the hub of the wheel, the start of the process. All activities in Iraq flow from them.

I tend to assume that most humans, taken at the individual level, are basically good at heart. Put them in a stressful environment, and the best comes out of the best, and the worst from the worst. This applies to cab drivers, teachers, and yes, even mercenaries.

Again, they are in Iraq because our government hired them, gave them a contract, provided them with the standards for the contract, outfitted them, and paid them to do a job. They wouldn't be there if George didn't make it so...

[daleo]

34. There may be an interesting point of law

I have no particular sympathy for mercenaries either, but the company may well have been recklessly negligent in their actual employment of these people - i.e. they may have misled them about the true risks of the situation.

There may be an interesting point of law, in as much as civil, criminal, and international law may be in conflict. For example, will the companies claim they have no liability, as the mercenaries were involved in a criminal activity, since the war itself might be against international law? Or would they claim the particular mission was illegal, although the war was legal, and the mercenaries had exceeded their authority as employees of the corporation?

If nothing else testimony and discover would be very revealing, should this case go forward. I don't doubt that the families involved are expecting an out of court settlement, to prevent this discovery from going forward. Perhaps some angel will put up the settlement, to make sure that things don't come to light that would make the BFEE look even worse than it already does.

Maybe some of our DU lawyers can venture an opinion.

[RamboLiberal]

36. I met a couple of "mercs" this summer who worked

for a company that had the head of the company and a couple of his guys in Iraq to guard the pipelines. They damn well knew exactly what they were getting in to and were enjoying the hell out of the big money and the thrills. A lot of these guys are adreneline junkies.

[daleo]

40. That sounds extremely likely.

Some people do care more about a buzz than anything else.

[leftchick]

50. Like this guy? Damn he is Bad!

:eyes:

[Tight_rope]

37. They may not have been properly armed or trained .....but

they certainly were being paid handsomely. And I'm sure tax free at that. In life you take risk. But really the families should be suing Bushco because they are the true reason those man were in this mess that killed them.

[jayctravis]

38. First reaction might be "frivolous"...but...

if Bush is going to fight the war with private companies, they are subject to responsibility and justice that the President is delegating to them.

[puddycat]

39. this reminds me of how the Challenger teacher's family got money

Her family got paid off from the government, and I think that stunk. Afterall, she volunteered to sit on top what was essentially a huge bomb waiting to go off, and when it did, her family put out their hands. Seems to me if you volunteer to do something extremely dangerous--whether its space flight or war zone mercenary--that you and your heirs give up the right to be compensated when the shit hits the fan.

[DS1]

52. Wow, I didn't know that, and I can't even imagine how many contracts

absolving NASA or the Gov't of any damages she must've signed.

The McAuliffe Learning Center people rank amoung the most pretentious I've ever worked for, while we're on topic.

[neweurope]

46. Mercenaries kill for money. Both mercenaries and those who employ them

are to be despised.

As to the "terrible pictures" When they were "hung" they were dead already. Pieces of meat, in fact. And - well... shit happens when you attack innocent nations.


--------------------


Remember Fallujah!

Bush to The Hague

[cap]

47. I hope that they bankrupt the company...

and I hope people start learning what the difference between joining a privatized military and the real armed services really means.

There is some accountability in the services such that there are relatively few officers doing horrifically stupid things. There is none in a private company. Remember the troops who refused to carry contaminated fuel into very dangerous areas. There is a mechanism in the military to handle such cases; there is none in these security companies.

Although, I bet these folks voted for "tort reform".

[Skittles]

49. they were war profiteers

they knew what they were getting into

[Cocoa]

51. what does this have to do with your sympathy?

or anyone's sympathy?

It's a legal case, apparently a sort of breach of contract, they weren't given the equipment they were promised.

[Blue_Tires]

61. funny how the families were not complaining

when the mercs were earning their $1000-2000 per day...And I thought families or next of kin got a (HUGE) lump sum from the company for breadwinners that get killed???

[Torque67]

62. It depends on the contract.

My father in law is a former mercenary, and he had a contract stipulation that provided a one time payment to his family (his parents at the time) in the event of his untimely demise. He was fussing the other day about the pay the private security guys are getting in Iraq right now, as it is a far, far better deal than he got in the Congo and other areas.

I'm thinkin we can say that these guys took the risk, whether it be for dollars or the buzz, and it's a shame they died young. Just as it's a shame that anyone has to over most anything that wars start over.

[Solon]

76. There is a reason I hate mercs...

I have a friend who was in the USMC, 3 friends of his died at the hands of mercs in Somalia.

[SKKY]

72. Wait, they weren't properly trained or armed???

These guys were freakin' former special forces for Christ's sake? Is there anyone better trained for this type of stuff? I feel sorry for the families, but it seems like they're lasing out at Blackwater when they should be aiming their guns in other areas.

[iamjoy]

74. Not All Of These Contractors

Are involved in combat, or want to be in combat.
Some of them are providing communications, meals or USO type services.

But, as for the combat type mercenaries, I say they may be bad, but the corporations that send them unprepared are worse.

[peacebird]

82. no sympathy, sorry.

these mercs are getting rich over there. that's why they went, for the almighty dollar. therefore - that's the chance they take.

i would however support a massive lawsuit by all our military who are wounded because of inadequate armour, or even just the complete incompentence of rummy's postwar effort.

[ernstbass]

89. No sympathy for mercenaries

[Clyde Bruckman]

90. Not enough bad publicity lately for DU?

This entire thread is one big black eye for Democratic Underground. "These fuckers got exactly what they deserved." Pretty sickening comments on a progressive website.

These were human beings who didn't deserve to meet such an end, irregardless of what you think of their professional or political choices.

Sure, I know, I don't have 1000+ posts so flame away and disregard what I have to say but this entire thread has made me reconsider ever coming back to this website again. When did we become this vicious?????

[MADem]

93. You don't hear that from me

...or a number of others on the thread.

The real issue here is the policy of the administration, not the participation by those on the ground, many of whom are motivated solely by financial considerations and family obligations. It is unfortunate that some cannot see the larger, controlling issue, and that their anger makes them want to strike out at anyone they regard as a "representative" of BushCo.

As you are new, I'd recommend that you continue to look around the board before you infer that the comments of a few reflect the overall sentiment of the membership. There are a number of diverse views here. It's a big tent, after all.

People are understandably outraged by this hideous, foolish, war of choice in Iraq. Iraq will become "Democratic" when whales drive SUVs, and it always was all about the damn oil. People are dying left and right, and some are looking to lay blame. I'm all for laying blame, but I think we ought to be laying it down in front of 1600 Penn, not atop the caskets of some poor, foolish and unfortunate bastards who just wanted to pay their mortgages.

[Clyde Bruckman]

102. Thank you for your thoughtful response

I agree with you 100%. I appreciate your comments.

[MADem]

103. You are quite welcome

Clyde, and welcome to DU.

It can get contentious, but it is never dull. There's an awful lot of emotion over this war, a lot of concern over the abrogation of civil rights and basic liberties, a lot of concern about the direction of the country nowadays (and with good reason!). People sometimes let their emotions run away with them--unfortunately, your first look at the board was in one of the more highly emotional threads. Trust me, though, it isn't always this dramatic, and is often fun!

[Blue_Tires]

94. "These were human beings who didn't deserve to meet such an end"

A black eye for DU??? they were mercs...who were well aware of the dangers and volunteered to fight in a war for greed. a war they probably didn't have much of a stake in, anyways. And these mercs are out there shooting up anything that moves in the country like the wild wild west, and many reports from U.S. troops indicate that the reckless methods of groups like Blackwater do more harm than good over there...

These men have NO accountability, and have the utmost contempt for the Iraqis...They are better equipped than the average grunt, have better living quarters, food and amenities, and make ten times as much as the average grunt (all on the taxpayer dime)!!

There is a reason that mercs have been universally derided and despised for thousands of years...To fight and kill in a grisly, dirty, illegal war for a mere paycheck or to get your bloody jollies displays the WORST of human nature, period. This isn't a game of tag or a paintball match or a online FPS...people over there are being 'liberated' from their lives HOURLY.

These people DID get what they deserved, and they were well paid for it...If these are the people you want to defend, go right ahead, but if you want to lament the loss of life I suggest you start with the thousands of men women and children shot by these 'contractors'

And the increasing reliance on them from the Pentagon is even more alarming...And remember this about 'guns for hire': they may work for the U.S. now, but don't EVER think they wouldn't work against us if the price was right.

edit: welcome to the board

[MADem]

95. Most of these guys are not running around shooting people

They are providing security for convoys and for the Iraqi leadership, and for the US envoys and businesspeople who are working on infrastructure issues. I believe those poor guys who were strung up on the bridge were doing convoy work, not running about and shooting up the place.

Look around, you'll surely find an exception--that's inevitable. But that is not the mission for these guys. The guys who are contracted out to do CIA or NSA work are a completely different entity, also.

I will restate what I said above--it does no good to go on blaming THE WRONG PEOPLE. If WE, the US of A, did not HIRE these guys, they would not be working over there. We need to give this administration a course correction, and gloating over the deaths of unfortunate tools of the cabal is just not helpful in achieving that goal.

[Solon]

98. True, they probably wouldn't be working over there...

but many would be working in other places, such as Southeast Asia, or Africa, doing all sorts of horrendious crimes with no accountability. There is no shortage of that line of work, my aim is to starve them of the ability to find any work, worldwide. Ban them completely, and when caught, throw them in prison. At the very least, put their jobs in the same category as slave holders or child trafickers, and make it just as illegal.

[Blue_Tires]

117. i realize that

blackwater probably has some people over there who never leave the green zone and their only job is to wash jeeps, sharpen pencils or put paper in a printer...my rage is reserved for the hired guns

[Clyde Bruckman]

107. the WORST of human nature

is evident in your statement that "These people DID get what they deserved"

How are your sentiments any different than "God hates fags"? I'm not trying to be confrontational but do you see the hypocrisy here?

[Solon]

109. Actually that is a different and erronious comparison...

Gays harm no one, being who they are. Mercenaries have, at least the potential, to do great harm, both to our troops, and innocent civilians. That being said, I do not support most sentiments about they "getting what they deserve". There should be a trial, and then sentenced to life in prison if found guilty of war crimes.

[Blue_Tires]

113. you seem to mourn the loss of mercs more than iraqi innocents n/t

[Clyde Bruckman]

114. I don't know who you are talking to

but personally, I don't mourn the loss of any life more or less over another. I don't support the Iraq war whatsoever. I don't rejoice at the death of Iraqi innocents (haven't seen any threads rejoicing in it though so I couldn't comment on it) any more than the murder of "mercs" who you don't believe deserve any sympathy.

[Blue_Tires]

118. they ain't exactly the red cross or doctors without borders

these 'contractors' are trained killers and are paid handsomely for one reason: to kill...To do the shittiest and most immoral of missions that would get half the U.S. Army court-martialed if they were conducted under "official" command.

And maybe I'm a tad too harsh, but honestly, any kind of grief the mercs' surviving family feels now has already been visited on the iraqi people tenfold...and they have no one to 'sue'...

Blackwater will probably slide a few more bucks under the table to the families as hush money. In case others haven't noticed, the Iraq invasion has been a GODSEND to Blackwater with all the contracts they have been given, and their profit margins are in the billions, and only look to increase for the future.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. Irregardless...is that a word?

[Clyde Bruckman]

115. sure it is

a dictionary might be helpful :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

116. Sorry Clyde...the word is REGARDLESS although thanks to sloppiness

on the part of the public, your mangled version of the word is now in an unabridged dictionary.

as to your point....I don't take well to being lectured by someone about black eyes..frankly...those people were in the war business for profit...they are the lowliest of the low..I wish all people who worked for war profiteers would die horrible deaths...it would take the payoff out of such a destructive public policy....why don't you send this post over to FR or Little Green Footballs or wherever inbred assholes hang out who like to think they are giving us black eyes.

BTW..it was an earthquake followed by a tidal wave. You can quote me on that.
_|_

[Clyde Bruckman]

119. I admit it! Irregardless was my invention!

Due to my sloppiness, it is included in unabridged dictionaries the world over!

as to your point....who are you to make judgments about the lowliest of the low? I don't understand how "progressive" people can say that some human beings deserve to "die horrible deaths." How are we different than the judgmental "inbred assholes" you mention? I really don't understand this. Are you against the death penalty????

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

120. Sorry..they are war profiteers capitalizing on causing grief for others

if they end up dead as a result of a known risk that they chose to profit from..tough shit

[Clyde Bruckman]

121. sorry

I don't say "tough shit" about the death of any human being. No matter how repugnant I find them personally.

[Bragi]

91. If it goes to trial, it could be very interesting

[not fooled]

99. I heard something relevant...

...that the guys in this case were going around the town, basically making themselves conspicuous and flaunting their weapons, military hardware, big SUVs, etc. THAT was the reason they were attacked so viciously.

Sorry, I don't remember the source for this info.

[4dsc]

110. How stupid do you have to be

to go into a WAR ZONE, irregardless of training as a civilian??

[Canuckistanian]

111. These were soldiers of fortune

Despite being employees of a private firm. They should have known what they were getting in to.
Did they have life insurance? Probably not, because they chose a profession and a job that is inherently dangerous.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is is allied with the US, UK or any other "coalition" forces (don't forget Poland!) is an active moving target and they should expect to be.
Make out your will and settle your affairs before going over there.