A question about Blackwater/Civilian Reserve/Mecanaries.

[SanCristobal]

"Further privatizing the country's war machine — or inventing new back doors for military expansion with fancy names like the Civilian Reserve Corps — will represent a devastating blow to the future of American democracy." (http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes769.html)

This seems to be the prevailing sentiment around here whenever Blackwater or some other "mercenary" related topic comes up. My question is why? I don't get why America is threatened by Blackwater and similar companies, or why the idea of private security companies seems so hated.

What is your opinion and justification for it?

[Postman]

1. You don't understand the threat that unaccountable private armies pose?

Owned and operated by right-wing fundamentalist nutjobs? Unaccountable to Congress or absent of any oversight? Hello ?!?

Can you say - fascism???

Is it a good idea that Bush can send private armies into sovereign nations paid for with your tax dollars without Congress or the peoples knowledge or approval and start wars without oversight or accountability?

Or maybe he could send a small "team" of "private mercenaries" into Chicago and plant some explosives to be later blamed on the enemy of the month to start yet another war somewhere.. Sound like a good idea to you?

[salin]

2. We also pay a heck of a lot more for

services that used to be part of the military and lower cost. Much more expensive - and much less accountability.

[muntrv]

3. How would you feel about the U.S. going to war because of an attack

initiated by Blackwater types?

[SoCalDem]

4. They make a "volunteer" military possible

There used to be a hierarchy in military. Thery young draftees did the 'grunt work", and worked their way up.

When the draft ended it made OUTSOURCING necessary when the steady supply of men was halted.

Since the pay had to be greatly enhanced, a whole different group of people were suddenly attracted to the military, and many used it as "training ground" for their mercenary futures.

Tax dollars pay to train people, who then move on to merc jobs that pay them 5 times as much..

[Verde]

5. Well, if you have an army working for a company that is primarily profit motivated,

That would greatly increase the likelihood that they would be happy to work for the highest bidder.

Therefore, I cannot exclude the idea that they would turn to the highest bidder on a company wide or individual basis.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

35. You and I agree, but I don't think the OP chooses to understand the full implication of

working for the highest bidder means. I've stated more or less the same thing as you on this thread, but a bit more explicitly.

Apparently the fact that many or most of the employees of some of these firms used to be SEALS and Special Forces and what not is sufficient proof of loyalty to the country that you need not be concerned.

Also, why should anyone stay to become a senior NCO or officer in the military or its special forces if they can just quit after a few years and make several times the pay?

[sanskritwarrior]

47. FYI

The vast majority of people that work for Blackwater, Custer Battles and Triple Canopy are not former SEALS or SF guys. The average Blackwater employee (from my observations in Iraq) is either

A. A 21-25 year old Infantryman than got out after 2-4 years and wanted to make some big bucks

or

B. A 40-50 year old that is an ex-Cop or military member with little to no combat experience.

Watching Blackwater in action is like watching the Keystone Kops, they are comical.......they have terrible fire discipline, bad tactics and really crappy radios, armor, etc......

They truly are laughable to watch if their actions weren't often so tragic.....

And trigger puller contractors only represent 10-15% of all contractors....

here's a fairly normal contractor breakdown on a Brigade sized FOB:

We would have anywhere from 300-500 contractors on a 4000 soldier FOB

About 50 guys would be trigger pullers (Blackwater, Custer Battles, etc.....) (all veterans)
About 30-50 guys would be Police trainers for the Iraqi police force. (about half veterans)
About 50-100 would be KBR support staff......they run the swimming pool (if you have one), run the gyms, run the laundromat, fix generators, purify the water....etc.....(almost all civilians with no work experience)
About 100 would be truck drivers almost all civilians with no military experience
About 50 ABCS contractors (Army Battle Command systems) These guys and gals are almost all military vets, most of them were prior Intelligence or Signal corps types. They repair all the computer systems the Army uses to digitally project the battlespace. Without these people the war would not function, there would be no intel collaboration, there would be no COP (Common Operating picture) The COP is a digital display where all blue force vehicles are displayed as blue icons on the screen and all known bad guys are displayed as red icons. The red picture updates as more intel comes in, the blue picture updates as the vehicles move
Finally there would be about 50-60 Mechanics to fix the Hummers, 5 tons, and other vehicles.....

I know a lot about the ABCS guys because one lived next door to me for a year and I asked him a lot about his job, it sounds really technical. I know those computer guys make like 5000 a day or some crazy number like that and most of them are 25-35......

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

49. Thanks for this information, sanskrit.

[muntrv]

6. Read this article, especially the last sentence.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes769.html

[Raydawg1234]

7. private armies provide a loophole to get around posse comitatus

Their use abroad is a way to circumvent congress's war oversight powers.

[SanCristobal]

10. That's a good reason.

Though I would be more concerned about their domestic use.

[Raydawg1234]

36. ??? overriding posse comitatus is domestic use

[SanCristobal]

38. I know, but you said "use abroad" in the message body.

That was what I was referring to.

[me b zola]

8. Do you support the privatization of our military?

If so, why?

[SanCristobal]

12. No.

I also think Blackwater posses no risk of doing so. Its capabilities are so far from the Armed Forces that the comparison is laughable. The military is also an entrenched institution, the idea that they would accept a serious private rival is naive. I don't see Blackwater ever becoming more then very good security for companies/people in dangerous places.

[fed-up]

15. Abandoning troops resulting in their death is good security????

Your true colors are really beginning to show...

SanCristobal (253 posts) Sun Jan-28-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. No.

I also think Blackwater posses no risk of doing so. Its capabilities are so far from the Armed Forces that the comparison is laughable. The military is also an entrenched institution, the idea that they would accept a serious private rival is naive. I don't see Blackwater ever becoming more then very good security for companies/people in dangerous places

[SanCristobal]

18. Compared to the private security market as a whole, they are top tier.

No one ever said Iraq was easy.

Besides Cheney and Rumsfeld in 2003...

[Raydawg1234]

44. makes the military industrial complex worse......war for profit

it's lake a racket......using the government as a front to funnel taxpayer money into the hands of contractors.

[fed-up]

9. Do you or did you ever work for Blackwater or a similar company? n/t

[SanCristobal]

13. Yes, I invested my Enron fortune in them.

What does that have to do with anything?

[fed-up]

14. I smell something funny in this provacative thread......

[daleo]

11. Private armies were the scourge of Europe in the middle ages

They could easily be the scourge of the earth in the 21st century.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. U.S. military have an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and the country, as well as UCMJ (legal

code of conduct and punishment).

Mercenaries are not bound by any such requirements.

Having no loyalty except to the dollar, why couldn't they be hired by a foreign power, or tell what intelligence they know to the highest bidder?

Not being accountable to the U.S. government or the Uniform Code of Military Justice as the military theoretically is, they could commit acts of assassination or torture funded by your tax dollars. Many people, mostly Right Wingers, think this is a good thing. I do not.

Furthermore, the mercenaries we are hiring right now are a lot more expensive than U.S. troops doing similar jobs. Granted, I doubt they get benefits, the mercs can make six figures and even multiples of that, salaries way more than an enlisted U.S. soldier/Marine who is accountable to the U.S. and subject to the UCMJ for their actions.

[SanCristobal]

20. Blackwater was founded by a Navy Seal and employs many ex-military personnel.

I assume there is a lot of national loyalty in its ranks. I agree about the torture part though, I hadn't thought of that.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. Regardless of past military service, they are not bound by any loyalty or oath except what they

might possess as individuals.

Can you see a difference?

I spent most of my adult life bound by these oaths, but I no longer am. I have individual loyalty to the nation. But there's a big difference.

The guy who stands to make $200K a year toting an MP5 for Blackwater where he might have made $35K doing it as an enlisted SEAL has an entirely different set of motivations.

If he decides he doesn't like it anymore, he isn't bound by law to continue, he can just quit and forfeit his money. Etc. etc.

[SanCristobal]

29. I would agree, but for that fact

that any such oath is no guarantee of loyalty, the person taking it is. After seeing how much good oaths do to prevent police abuse, I don't put much stock in their protective power. I do put faith in my countrymen not to completely betray our nation for a paycheck.

[magellan]

48. How about betraying our nation for an ideology?

The people who run Blackwater are Christian supremacists. Who will they really put first, our nation, or their god?

[Aviation Pro]

42. Furthermore....

...Erik Prince, the co-founder of Blackwater USA, is the brother of Betsy Devos, wife of Dick Devos, failed candidate for governor of Michigan and heir to the Amway/Quixtar/Alticor fortune. A bit of digging into the background of that outfit will reveal that they are part of the 19-family oligarchy that seeks to concentrate all the wealth with the rich. A private army is what they need to accomplish this.

[annabanana]

22. Here's your answer, SanCristobal , If you're interested....

I personally, prefer that our armed forces offer oaths of allegience to America and its Constitution.

[Ikonoklast]

17. The Roman Empire

Vast armies that fought on the fringe of the empire were mostly mercenaries loyal first to their commander, second to Rome.

When the conquering commander returned flush with victory, if he wasn't given all that he demanded either politically or monetarily, the unspoken threat of force was implicit. Crossing the Rubicon at the head of an army would ensure panic in the streets of Rome.

They fought not so much as for the greater glory of Rome, moreso for the cult of personality of their generals and the promise of land and wealth for themselves.

We are heading down the same path.

[happyslug]

19. THe problem with Mercenaries is WHO CONTROL THEIR PAY.

A mercenary will obey the person who controls their pay even if that is NOT in the best interest of the Country whose taxes are being used to pay the Mercenaries.

A recent case was Romania. The Romania Army backed the people is overthrowing their last Communist dictator, but this was opposed by the Romanian Secret Police, a Mercenary group. Thus in the late 1980s when Eastern Europe overthrew their Communist Dictators, the only case where Violence occurred was in Romania. The Rest of Eastern Europe did NOT have the large Secret Police of Romania and when the Army supported the Revolution the Communist gave way without fighting for the Communist had no Mercenary Troops to fall back on. In Romania the Communist Dictatorship did have a sizable mercenary Army in the form of their Secret police (Mercenary in the sense the Secret Police had special privileges common people did not have and thus these special privileges the Secret Police wanted to keep, for they were more valuable to them then pay).

In Militia or Universal Service Armies the Army and the People are one and the same, different structure, but basically the same people (or the same males who tend to be husbands, Fathers and sons to women so such armies reflect what the people want).

On the other hand Mercenary armies tend to keep to themselves (and keep their families away from the rest of the country) and thus you have NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SUCH MERCENARY ARMIES AND THE PEOPLE. This was the Roman Army after the reforms of Maius in 109 BC (Prior to 109 BC the Roman Army was a Militia Army that EVERY ROMAN CITIZEN HAD TO SERVE IN, After 109 BC the Roman Army became the Mercenary private Army of the Senator that raised them, after Augustus Caesar these armies became the private army of the Emperor. After the Reforms of Maius you start to hear less and less of the rights of the Roman Poor (Which is Ironic for Maius and his nephew Julius Caesar technically supported the people over the Rich families of Rome). After Augustus, even the institutions that reflected the will of the people were abolished, replaced by the Colosseum. Roman Legions were kept on the Frontier away from Rome (unless needed) so that such legions would separate from the Roman people in Rome. These "Augustuian" legions were replaced by NEW Mobile Legions under Diocletian after the near collapse of the Roman Empire in the Third Century AD. The older Augustinian Legions converted during that Century to a barter system to be feed which reattached them to the Roman people on the frontier of the Empire, making them more a frontier Militia then a Mercenary Armies (and as such not trusted by the Roman elite of the time period).

Under Diocletian these older legions were no longer able to be used to keep down the Roman People so Diocletian developed the horse mounted mobile legions of the later Roman Empire to do so. The Mobile Legions were continued by Constantine and his successors but do to further economic decline tied in with Julius's attempt to conquer Persia (It cost money to expand and then sent an Army to war). The Decline of the Empire was furthered by the subsequent debacle at the battle of Adrainople. After Adrainople the Empire turned to using German Mercenaries to keep their peasants in line (Except for the Goths and the Vandals, the rest of the Germanic "Invaders" of the Fifth Century were invited in by the Roman Elite more than conquered the Roman Empire in the West).

As to the Goths (and the other German "Invaders"), the Invaders were willing to support the Empire and the Roman Elite, but being peasant Stock they tended to relate the peasants then the Roman Elite. This lead to the such invaders identifying with the Peasants and becoming more a ruling elite then Mercenaries. Thus by the early 6th Century such Invaders were doing land reform which the Empire had needed since the time of the Gracchi (about 120 BC). For this the Empire (based in the sixth Century in Constantinople) sent its mercenary army to retake Italy and the rest of the Western Empire to stop such reforms. Justinian was able to retake Italy, Tunisian and Southern Spain before he went broke. Within 50 years the Empire would lose Northern Italy permanently (Except for Venice) and land reform would progress. North Africa would stay Roman for another 100 years but then the Arabs would take it along with Spain (Through do to the land reforms of the Goths the Arab hold on Spain was weak and would lead to the "Reconquesta"). Finally do the the Arab Invasion, The Empire had to do land reforms itself (Through in the area of the Empire that had the least large estates so was the easiest to do). Out of these Reforms was the "Thematic" Armies of the Byzantine Army, an army more like a Militia then the mercenary armies of the Roman Empire at the Empire's height.

My point here is Rome's use of Mercenaries was NOT aimed at foreign enemies, but domestic enemies. Land Reform was needed in the Roman Empire as early as the Third Punic war (146 BC) but was opposed by the Roman Elite. The Roman people and army was heading to such land reforms under the Grachi but both Grachi Brothers were murdered (The second by Mercenaries, the first by the Roman Senators themselves). From that point onward the Roman Elite looked for something to stem this tide of Democracy for it would mean the taking over of their large estates and the division of those large estate in smaller farms (and under Roman Law of the time period such large estates were illegal in the first place, for land ownership was technically limited to 600 acres per person).

Rome used its mercenary army to keep its peasants in line. That has been the main use of Mercenaries throughout history. The other great time for Mercenaries is right after the Black Death, wages went up for peasants so Mercenaries were hired to keep Peasants on the Manors.

After the US Civil War the US Army was a mercenary army (It was at least 50% foreign Born, and 1/5 of ALL troops were BLACK ex-Slaves, thus the majority of WHITES in the US army, post Civil War were foreign born). This Army was used to chase Indians, but also to put down strikes (Such as the General Strike of 1877). The National Guard was not much better (Especially after the Third Brigade of the Pennsylvania National Guard deserted in mass when the First Brigade fired on Strikers during the General Strike in Pittsburgh, The Third Brigade was the Pittsburgh Brigade and refused to participate in such uncalled for shooting, after ward recruiting into the Guard tended to be restricted to people who were doing it for the money, this became even more prevalent after the Homestead strike and the Solider who cheered "Three Cheers for the Man who Shot Frick"). Mercenaries do NOT care why they are fighting, as long as their are paid.

This is the problem with ALL MERCENARIES, they will obey their paymasters not the people. When a dispute occur between the people and the people PAYING the Mercenaries, the Mercenaries will shoot their paychecks. Do we really want such people armed and around? The Militia is NOT a threat, it is not pay. The Army and National Guard I have some problems but at least they are technically subject to Civilian Control and most enlist from the people (Through Regular US Army personnel and Families are often kept separate from the rest of the population which frightens me). The key is most people understand the concept of Police and Army, but these "Non-Governmentally" controlled Creatures are NOT understood by Most people.

Furthermore, if this Country has a Severe Economic Problem, Mercenaries tend to go away OR grab things for themselves. This is what happened at the Fall of the Western Roman Empire (The German Tribes were actually serving as Mercenaries when the Empire fell and then took over the areas they were in). After the end of one of the major periods o Fighting between England and France during the 100 years war, the Foreign Mercenaries would loot other areas of Europe when both Kings stopped paying them. Thus Mercenaries are just bad news and should be avoided.

[SanCristobal]

25. Great post, a lot to think about.

[sendero]

21. for starters..

... we pay these folks $100 an hour for the same job that military personnel would get a small fraction of that amount to do.

I don't have to get any further than this. It's nothing but a big money grab, a way, like half of all defense contracting, to let your friends raid the treasury.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

24. And those same friends are bound, tit for tat, to give big campaign $$$ to your party. Wink.

[salin]

26. Granted, you support the war and think it is a good thing

or at least that is my reading of your previous posts.

There have been many reasons to have objections to this war. One early objection (from non pacifists) was that it drew resources away from the efforts in Afghanistan (against those directly working with those who attacked us) and now it is known that indeed just barely after the fall of Kandahar - huge resources were being pulled (intel and military) from Afghanistand and To Iraq - one of the ways to start spreading thin was to greatly expand the role of much MORE expensive (to taxpayers) of privatized military outfits (freed from oversight - another plus) - rather than take the case to the people that the "second front" was SO serious that the entire public needed to get behind and sacrifice (think draft or at least very serious and high money recruitment - ala pay more taxes for the effort) - but no.

Given your support for the Iraq war, it isn't suprising that you would also support the privatized (and gouging of taxpayers) military outfits as it was the only way to get the war on. The public wasn't going to have the level of widespread support as was the case in WWII (despite the admins attempts to compare the two) to either institute a draft - or a tax hike in order to get the $$ needed for recruitment (and bonuses/plus) to expand the size of the military to the size honestly needed for a seond war effort.

[fed-up]

28. Bingo! We have a winner here, well stated! n/t

[SanCristobal]

30. What does that have to do with this thread?

My opinions on the war have nothing to do with this subject, and unless I'm mistaken I have never expressed them here. I also never said I support private military/security companies, only that I don't feel particularly threatened by them.

Out of curiosity, does this site have a way to look up old posts?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

32. Yes it's called "search" but I believe you must be a paying member.

[salin]

40. Didn't look them up

I remembered them - as the sentiments are rather unique here, these days. I have been here for five years and the prowar sentiments were always few and memorable - and recent ones even more so. If one has donated one has the ability to 'search' for old posts - but i didn't do that when I posted. I worked on memory as it stood out - and I am pretty confident that if one were to search the forum and archives in GD it would be found.

There are dems who support the war, and independent who oppose bush who support the war - so i haven't "alerted" - as you do seem to be against bush. But I did notice - as I try to understand different posters perspectives - in general I try to be respectful of perspectives - as it allows for less superficial discussions. In this case, I just noted the diverse perspective towards issue related to the war - and yes I am confident that a search would demonstrate multiple examples of your support for the war. Not necessarily how bush has waged the war - but for the war in general. That is on you - though one would think that after learning HOW much the intel was manipulated for making the case for war - which most folks are very familiar with - it would be hard to keep with that position - but it is not me to judge.

However - given that to support this war - when it required shorting another war (one that many supported due to the attacks of 911) - than the issue of mercenary companies becomes revelant - as it was the only way - as the military wa already stretched too thin - to even consider the action (per policy makers). So the discussion is germaine per my earlier post.

[SanCristobal]

43. You're probably right about what my post history would show.

In my defense, keep in mind the difference between being well versed in a theory and actively supporting it. I'm pretty intimately involved with people from all over the political spectrum, and very interested in the politics behind the current American experience, so I'm well read on a good deal of neocon and arch-capitalist doctrine. Like it or not, these are the people who have been setting the table and it pays to try and understand them.

Thanks for not alerting me. I know some of the stuff I have posted hasn't always gone down so well, and I appreciate being given the chance to make my case.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. You supporting the war would have everything to do with it.

Do you?

[SanCristobal]

53. I'm going to annoy everyone and refuse to answer that on principle,

since I don't see what it has to do with this thread.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. What it has to do with the thread?

Have you ever had a long conversation with somebody, and then it turns out that person was really into chemtrails, crystal therapy, and holocaust denial?

[SanCristobal]

56. Actually yeah.

That conversation turned out pretty fun, though it was like arguing with a brick wall. The thing is, whatever my views on the war are, I am not bringing them into this thread. I honestly don't know very much about Blackwater and its ilk, and wanted to know what the big fuss is. I'm not pro-mercenaries, I'm neutral.





Why won't anyone believe me about chem trails?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. You have a number of responses giving many excellent reasons why the trend towards mercs is bad.

Is it not obvious enough now?

Way more expensive.

No obligated loyalty to country or Constitution.

Going to be loyal to highest bidder, almost by definition by what they are doing. If their first loyalty was truly to the nation they would stay active duty.

Not bound by UCMJ, so relatively free to commit atrocities mostly free of scrutiny.

Is that enough for you? :shrug:

[SanCristobal]

33. That's more or less what I was looking for.

I don't agree with all the reasons, but some very good points were brought up and this thread gave me something to think about.

[happyslug]

39. Why not cite Machiavelli himself?

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1232

CHAPTER XII -- HOW MANY KINDS OF SOLDIERY THERE ARE, AND CONCERNING
MERCENARIES (page 32 et seq at Project Gutenberg above if you want to read Machiavelli whole chapter on Mercenaries.)

NOTE: By "Mercenaries" Machiavelli means people who hire themselves out and are formed by a Government to fight for that Government. By the term "auxiliaries" Machiavelli means when the Government hires a whole unit from another country. The difference is slight. As to Blackwater it Mercenary in that it is NOT hiring whole units from other countries.


I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant among st themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

[Unperson]

31. These companies are merely fronts for the CIA.

Think Air America, Civil Air Transport, Intermountain Air. CIA proprietaries masquerading as legitimate businesses. Cofer Black is at Blackwater, former Director of the CIA Counterterrorist Center. Steven Kappes is at Armorgoup, former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. Spooks are on the payrolls of all these companies. It's a way for them to run "black ops" with no accountability.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=J._Cofer_Black
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_R._Kappes

[Zhade]

34. You don't understand why people profiteering off an illegal war are hated?

Gee, what a surprise.

[MN ChimpH8R]

37. Thom Hartmann pointed out that

the best historical parallel is the Sturmabteilung (SA) in fascist Germany. I think he's right.

The people who work for outfits like Blackwater are scum of the earth on the same level as Chimpy, Cheney and the rest of the BFEE.

[happyslug]

41. Blackwater is NOT the SA.

The SA was NOT mercenaries, but more like the various "Militia" groups you see in the US at the present time (Except in Germany they had more members and organized into a much larger organization). please note the SA was for all practical purposes killed off in 1934 in the Nights of Long Knives (Through it stayed as a organization till 1939). Most SA members were street thugs nothing more.

If you mean the SS, Hitler Body Guard, closer to the mark. The SS became Hitler hit-men, but these were people who WANTED TO BE A MEMBER OF HITLER'S INNER CIRCLE. These were the Fanatics (Except as WWII continued the SS started to recruit more and more non-germans, some historians believe most SS units by 1945 were no more than 50% German do to manpower shortages that require the use of any male the SS could dragoon into their ranks).

Blackwater is more a classic Mercenary group then the Fanatical followers of a charismatic leader (Which is what the members of both the SA and SS were). Blackwater members will NOT die for the US nor Blackwater (unlike SA and SS members who would die for Hitler). Blackwater is the hired Thugs who will kill someone for their employer nothing more (i.e. more a mafia hit man then a SS soldier).

[and-justice-for-all]

46. BW is SA, like...

..I am sure some trigger happy jesus freak will have his chance to go abroad and pull a few thousands rounds off..BW is a CIVILIAN milita group who have 2,300 staffers throughout the world.

Most recently they were hired to escourt prominent Iraqi Government officals...They are also dubbed "Private Security Service."

[and-justice-for-all]

45. Its apart of PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY...

..Its also part of the Xtian militants plan to take over the military and numorous public sector services. But, I think that the Public Sector take over has failed, so now its the military they want in order to gain control of America Society through force.

Hagge spends more time on the Hill then most politicians, I find that to be appaling in its self. I am a tax paying citizen and I can do that, why the fuck should that fat bastard beable too?!

They will fail and fail hard it will shatter their foundations. Eric Prince (Head Of BlackWater) and family actually funded James Dobson(R-Piece of shit) to form "Focus on the Family" and Tony Perkins kult clusterphuck "Family Research Council." Extermeist with guns..hhmmmm, PASS ON THAT THANX!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. I don't care for mafia hitmen either.

Is there a substantial difference?

[SanCristobal]

52. Hit men break the law,

Blackwater helps make the law!

You know, lobbying, friendly insiders and such. But seriously, what exactly does Blackwater do in Iraq? I only ever hear about them as high paid bodyguards, but they seem to have quite the video library of killing up on Youtube. Ironically, some soldiers who post on another forum I'm on were just talking about applying for Blackwater jobs when they get out of the military. Small world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Blackwater makes the law?

Silly me, I thought that was Congress.

[SanCristobal]

57. Congress?

LOL! You give them too much credit, especially if we are talking war issues. Don't forget about the six years of rubber stamp work before the November elections.