Blackwater

CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Heh, you think the USA having a standing army is unconstitutional?

It's a different world my friend from 250 years ago, but the template is SUPPOSED to remain intact.

The security of the nation falls to the FED'S. Everything else is supposed to be run by states. There's the problem to concentrate on, not whether we should stand our army down in between conflicts.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
The trouble with mercs is they are crazy, insane. No sane person would voluntarily put his/her life on the line for money. It really just does not compute. Since they are crazy, they see life as not so valuable, theirs or the enemy's. All mercenaries should be illegal, especially from the 1st world countries and especially from the USA. It is a blight on our countries reputation. How can we build nations, (We shouldn't be in that business anyway), with mercenaries. it's fucked up.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
^^^ Thank you Johnnyorganic. I do believe it says something about 2 years also. It's interesting how it was written many years ago to perhaps mean one thing, in my opinion anyway, but applied differently today. One could infer that there was meant to be a limitation on a standing army and the scope of it's duties. I believe the intention was not to have domestic troops stationed abroad the way they have been since the end of World War II.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
^^^ Thank you Johnnyorganic. I do believe it says something about 2 years also. It's interesting how it was written many years ago to perhaps mean one thing, in my opinion anyway, but applied differently today. One could infer that there was meant to be a limitation on a standing army and the scope of it's duties. I believe the intention was not to have domestic troops stationed abroad the way they have been since the end of World War II.
Click to expand...
The two year limit is in reference to Appropriations, not the Army itself.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that use shall be a longer Term than two Years;
Click to expand...
The U.S. has had foreign bases since the Spanish American War.

What do you make of this?
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
Click to expand...
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
This is what happens when you form a conclusion and then try and whack round pegs in square holes to make ur world view fit. It doesn't and it won't.

Appeasement brings on more violence, not less.
 
GreenSurfer

GreenSurfer

Well-Known Member
I've been to Blackwater, now Xe, MANY times and am intimately familar with their operations. I've never met or done business with anyone their that I didn't trust or believe in...and I'm talking about their most senior leadership. There is a reason the CIA, DEA, FBI, State Dept., and DOZENS of foreign governments use them...they are dependable and get the job done.

Don't forget...when Poland's entire diplomatic convoy came under overwhelming ememy fire in Iraq...Blackwater's teams were the only ones capable of responding quick enough to save the diplomatic staff...not the US forces, not Polish forces.

Whatever you think you know about them...I'll guarantee you are wrong. Political beliefs aside...I find some RIU posters' ignorance absolutely mindboggling.
 
GreenSurfer

GreenSurfer

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
The trouble with mercs is they are crazy, insane. No sane person would voluntarily put his/her life on the line for money. It really just does not compute. Since they are crazy, they see life as not so valuable, theirs or the enemy's. All mercenaries should be illegal, especially from the 1st world countries and especially from the USA. It is a blight on our countries reputation. How can we build nations, (We shouldn't be in that business anyway), with mercenaries. it's fucked up.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you are not taking into account the background investigations, polygraphs, psych evals, physicals, qualification testing, etc. Basically, 10x more mental assessment than most police officers in North America.

And...'mercs' and security isn't their only business. Training US & foreign police is one of their core programs. For instance, after Columbine...Blackwater had the first & most advanced school shooting and response course for police officers...complete with a school building for officers to train in real world situations.

They also train and supply bomb detection K9s to governments around the world.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
The two year limit is in reference to Appropriations, not the Army itself.
The U.S. has had foreign bases since the Spanish American War.

What do you make of this?
Click to expand...
The Constitution does say "to provide and maintain a navy". That seems to mean it was intended for a permanent navy to protect the shores. That's pretty straight forward.

In the context of the constitution it's possible that an army was only intended to be "raised" and "appropriated " in the event of an attack against the country. Otherwise it might have said
"to provide and maintain an army", if it were intended to be a permanent rather than discretionary institution.

Concerning foreign bases, every empire needs them. The United States has plenty of them. I'm of the opinion that the U.S. government has no constitutional authority to provide for
"protecting" other countries with permanent bases or to maintain an empire. At the very least it seems to be fiscally unsustainable.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
This is what happens when you form a conclusion and then try and whack round pegs in square holes to make ur world view fit. It doesn't and it won't.

Appeasement brings on more violence, not less.
Click to expand...
My conclusions are that when you assess root causes, you have to be willing to be introspective and consider ALL the information. It's not impossible that a history of foreign intervention in the middle east by the United States has resulted in unintended consequences. To whole heartedly deny that possibility is to be subjective and not objective.
Do you deny that the USA has meddled in the middle east prior to the latest great adventures?

Whacking round pegs in square holes would be like attacking one country (two?) when men from other different countries did a terrorist attack wouldn't it?

I think it is important to be honest. Our "national security" interests in the middle east are largely about oil and protecting access to it. Do you disagree?

How do you explain Saudi Arabia? That country has been run by one family of dictators for years... and has the backing of the U.S. despite a dismal human rights past. Is that a coincidence that they have all that oil?

I don't oppose the United States protecting it's borders. I do oppose using nationalistic false flags to
maintain a state of perpetual war so that a geographic area ripe with oil can be occupied.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Try the British and work from there in dealing with the Middle east. You've already gone past the root cause of strife.

And by Foreign Intervention by the USA, if you mean RECOGNIZING them as a nation and a Democracy , yes, guilty as charged. You feel otherwise? Like Obama recognizing the regime in Iran when clearly the PPL there want something else?
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
CrackerJax said:
Try the British and work from there in dealing with the Middle east. You've already gone past the root cause of strife.

And by Foreign Intervention by the USA, if you mean RECOGNIZING them as a nation and a Democracy , yes, guilty as charged. You feel otherwise? Like Obama recognizing the regime in Iran when clearly the PPL there want something else?
Click to expand...
Maybe we should let the people there, Iran, start their own revolution, and let's be honest CJ, US foriegn policy is structured strictly to enable our corporations to rape and pillage foriegn soil, I mean that is the way it is man, surely you are aware of this. This bullshit about starting functioning democracies is just that, Bullshit. We set up Puppet governments that will allow us to "Rape and Pillage", end of conversation.
 
Hydrotech364

Hydrotech364

Well-Known Member
I think I mentioned that I recieve newsletters from about 5 security groups.I opened my latest Blackwater newsletter this morning and it had an article linked from another news agency."Fighting the Taliban:The nature of Combat in the Hindu kush"Check it out..

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5046283,00.html

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your God like a soldier."
- Rudyard Kipling -
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
That was a great read. Glad to see at least some portions of our country understand what's at stake there.

They want the Paki nukes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top