What is the downside to cutting off future funding of US mercenaries?

[HereSince1628]

Why not start cutting funds to Bush's private Army: Blackwater Securities?

Wasn't it a terrible mistake for Germans not to have cut off the funds of the SA and then the SS?

Seems to me that we have a moral obligation to end funding of partisan US soldiers of fortune. They are tremendously expensive and they are outside the usual control of the US military.

[Benhurst]

1. There is no downside. They never should have been funded in the first place.

[HereSince1628]

4. That's my feeling. Appointing USA's is bad. Partisan militants is a CRISIS!

Blackwater is a NeoCon wet dream. It's a force available for use in both domestic and international confrontations to insure there is NO challenge to the hegemony of their lunatics.

To appreciate this, imagine how the rwing would feel about a "bluefire" security rising on the left...at that point the stage would be set for secular violence and complete chaos not unlike what we see in Iraq.

[Raven]

2. We have a moral and patriotic duty to cut off that funding if

we can find all the hiding places for it.

[stirlingsliver]

3. None. Nothing. Nil. Nada. Zip

There is absolutely NO downside to cutting off CURRENT and FUTURE funding of US mercenaries.

We do not need to be engaged in illegal pre-emptive wars of aggression anywhere in the world.

[soothsayer]

5. the blackwater army will try to overthrow us.

[AndyTiedye]

6. Downside is the Repiggie Spin Machine Will Use it To Make Us Look Bad

Of course, they do that all the time, no matter what we do (or don't do).