un-be-fucking-lievable.

Clearly Obama is at fault.

/QM

the guy who hires killers to kill may have had people killed. NEWSFLASH.

About fucking time.

I would love to see this organization put to sleep. However I think it would be better to educate the public on the perverseness of their actions.

If any thing were to come of this I would want there to be more publicity on this subject.

If Prince were brought to justice I would feel much better. Because burning the workers of the organization does nothing to put Xe to rest.

http://www.xecompany.com/

War crimes and rogue behavior are nothing new, they happen in every war. Of course, acting like a barbarian outside of the rules of war is what terrorists aka "insurgents" do. How odd that these Blackwater guys are judged Guilty-In-Advance by the same libmedia hard at work trying to give subhumans caught on battlefields attacking US troops "rights" and legal protections reserved for real soldiers.

Taking a few mercenaries to task is not enough! It's important that all of Christianity be blamed because the accused may or may not consider themselves Christian "holy warriors". The accused could just as easily have believed the enemy were disguised Martians, but there's a huge diff between "Christian crazy" (pure evil!) "Muslim crazy" (not evil, just culturally 'different') and crazy but useful (Olbyloon).

The icing on the cake for the Olbyloon is yet another chance to blame Bush for something, as if Bush or Rumsfeld personally ordered Blackwater to commit war crimes.

Is there a story here? Sure. Is it that the entire Iraqi war was a cover to distract the world from the actions of a few mercenaries who were somehow going to kill all Muslims by themselves?

Anything to take people's minds off the Obama Recession.

remember that video of yahooing mercs casually opening up their small arms on civvie cars (and their drivers) while in transit through some city?

I sure as fuck do.

The whole fucking Iraq fiasco is a war crime. I find it incredible that someone has been singled out as a criminal.

I mean if they intend to prosecute somebody on the grounds that they killed Iraqi civillians shouldn't Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and all of their cronies be up infront of the judge or was the crime that they did it "for fun" rather that profit or strategic gain?

>> ^acidSpine:
The whole fucking Iraq fiasco is a war crime. I find it incredible that someone has been singled out as a criminal.
I mean if they intend to prosecute somebody on the grounds that they killed Iraqi civillians shouldn't Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and all of their cronies be up infront of the judge or was the crime that they did it "for fun" rather that profit or strategic gain?


Over-simplifying the entirety of Iraqi politics into the singular designation of one big war crime is just ignorant. At the least when Bush Sr. went to war against Iraq Saddam had annexed Kuwait, and the evidence of his genocide against the Kurds was clear. When Bush Sr. came into office and was faced with the knowledge of what Saddam was truly like and willing and capable of doing, would it really have been more noble to do nothing? Remember, at that point Bush Sr. can NOT travel backwards through time to stop his predecessors from providing aid to Saddam.

Calling Iraq one big war crime is as stupid and ignorant as Fox declaring it the greatest event ever.

Blackwater is different in the same way Abu-Grahib was different. Or to put it just slightly different than you phrased it, killing civilians for 'fun' IS different from killing combatants in a war or battle.

QM- Bush and Rummy DID personally ALLOW Blackwater to commit war crimes by giving them the power of the military without any of the constraints, and by putting them in a foreign war zone as a 'crusading Christian army for Jebus' unincumbered by the law of the land, or U.S. law. Now, because they are from the bush years, it's OK for them to not only kill innocent civilians in other countries with impunity (and then publicly laugh about killing them) but also to kill AMERICANS in the US (as seems to be the case here)? As I understood it, killing a cooperating witness is a death penalty offense in most states, if they are found guilty, they should pay the appropriate price. Those who support them should pay the appropriate price of being ridiculed. Those who assist them should be tried as co-conspiritors.
Obama recession? It started on Bush's watch, apparently because of Bush's inability to do math. His policies of insane spending without taxing bankrupted us, and put us in a position we could not sustain by defering the cost of many of his programs. I think they thought they could hold it together until the election then blame the fall on the new guy, unfortunately for them it fell apart months earlier, yet you still try to blame the new guy for the faults of the old. I've even read you blaming Obama for the bailout, which was a Bush Cheney program. Typical head in the sand retardican responce. There are treatments available for cranial rectosis, if you had healthcare you could afford to be healed!

bcglorf- you said"... Bush Sr. can NOT travel backwards through time to stop his predecessors from providing aid to Saddam."
By predecessors, I'm guessing you mean Bush Sr. himself AND Cheney, along with (I assume) your hero, Reagan. They ALL supported both Sadam and Osama in their time.

By predecessors, I'm guessing you mean Bush Sr. himself AND Cheney, along with (I assume) your hero, Reagan. They ALL supported both Sadam and Osama in their time.

You'd presume wrongly about Reagan. Should I presume Carter a hero of yours? Reagan's 'support'(we'll get to why this is in quotes) for Osama was merely a continuation of the policy started by good old Jimmy Carter.

You are playing too loose with the facts by equating support for the mujahideen with support for Osama. The truth is America under Carter and Reagan supported a jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It's really just as bad, or even worse, but the implications of it are still importantly different and the context you give makes it outright false.

As for Saddam, you need to be consistent. I'll happily condemn support for a monster like Saddam. I would hold the one reservation though that it is much easier to see his true nature with the advantage of hindsight. To me, it is harder to condemn handling Saddam incorrectly when his nature was unclear than after it was undeniable.

By the time Bush Sr. was president, Saddam's actions had made his nature undeniable. He was a monster willing to do anything and everything to get what he wanted. He would use chemical weapons, he would commit genocide, he would annex neighboring states. Upon that nature being clear, I can not condemn the act of removing Saddam from Kuwait, nor of removing him from power in Iraq.

Why is it that some people believe that American foreign policy with Iraq is the sole and only factor to consider when looking at the situation? Are people truly that naive or simple minded? Is it just that it makes people more comfortable? What is it, I just can not understand it.

Why are people so content to believe Saddam was just a puppet put in power by America and that America used him to rape and pillage the middle east until they'd used him up and then decided to kill him and move on to the next puppet. More over, why do people who believe that utterly refuse to consider or look at any other factors or influences that have occurred in Iraq and the middle east over that time to at least make a half hearted attempt to verify the story?

bcglorf- I contend that continuing a policy makes it yours, and Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy, and supported (and trained him and his) in the tactics they use today against us. (OK, not in the use of suicide bombers, but the battlefield tactics they still successfully use).
True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power. It just so happens that 2 of these people became VP, and one President. That does not excuse Carters failings, or Clinton's, but they (like Regan) did not create the problem, they just failed at solving it. I should have left Bush2 out too I suppose, he didn't create the problme, he just failed miserably at solving it.
As I recall (and I'm not a historian) many of Saddam's actions you call monstrous happened before Bush SR was president, and while he still had the support of the US (publicly or privately). Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity. I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper. I disagree that removing him from power was a prudent thing to do, and I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target. Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.
I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.
This is not, as many wish to claim, a black or white issue. This is an issue that goes to the heart of what is wrong with America today. Dissolving multifaceted, complex problems down to a simplistic "one extreme or the other extreme" argument is not only not helpful in the least as far as solving the problems, it creates the new problem of dividing us into two, diametrically opposed factions that can not solve a problem with compromise or reason, but only come up with rhetoric, attack, and insult.
The puppet we put in power (or gave the tools to take and keep power at least) in the middle east that killed and raped in our name was Osama, not Saddam. He was killing and raping the soviets and their allies at the time, so we were happy with it. Our foreign policy created Osama's organization, and propped up Saddam for quite some time. If we ignore these facts, we are doomed to repeat them at our peril.
American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region. There are certainly other factors in play in the region, which should not be ignored, but when considering our policies, we need to consider them fully, not precurserorly. Ignoring the faults of our allies is perilous, just as ignoring our own faults is. You don't have to be a blame America Firster to see that our actions aren't perfect, as Blame America Neverists wish you to believe.

newtboy: Thanks for the well thought out response. It's a welcome change to many kneejerk cliche responses others are fond of.


Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy

He was simply a leader among many leaders within the mujahideen. After the Soviets were defeated dozens of different leaders amongst the mujahideen all started fighting with each other for control of the country. So it is just as accurate to describe our support for the mujahideen as support for Osama's enemies. My point is simply that in reality support for the mujahideen was support for the whole which was bad enough. Describing that as support for a specific individual within the mujahideen is not accurate and is in fact very misleading.


True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power.

I think you have your dates a little confused. The 60's-70's predates everybody you mentioned, including Reagan. Saddam didn't even take power in Iraq until 79 and Osama wasn't fighting in Afghanistan until the late 70's. The Soviet Afghanistan war didn't even start until 79. All once again predating Reagan and everyone else mentioned. Anyways, it's all more of an aside issue other than to make clear that Carter was the one around for the beginning of much of the mess.


Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity.

I don't strongly disagree with this, there is a certain amount of fog/unclarity about who knew what and when. But I haven't any problem with condemning aid to Saddam any point after it was known he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, which clearly America did not stop after witnessing. It wasn't until he used them on Halabja and it couldn't be blamed on Iran that America cooled towards Saddam, which in my eyes was also much too late.


I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper.

That much I'm very glad to hear.


I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target.

I couldn't agree more, and for the longest time opposed the second gulf war on nearly that basis alone. Upon listening to more accounts, particularly of the plight of the Kurds, I started to see it a little differently. Saddam may not be my first choice for monsters that need removal, but I must admit that he IS on the list. If he is on my list of monsters for removal, then I support his removal, even if America is only choosing him because it coincides with their self-interest.


Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.

I thought that too, but I've since learnt more about Saddam's rule and discovered that he may not have been the most monstrous dictators in the world, but he was in the very top of the class. In his campaign to exterminate the Kurds he setup concentration camps for them. All Kurdish men in these camps were executed and buried in mass graves. The children and elderly were so mistreated and abused that many died, virtually no children under the age of 5 survived the camps. The women were systematically raped. Not for the guards amusement or to humiliate the women, but to literally breed the Kurdish people out of existence. Oh, and the prisoners in these camps and rape rooms were not limited to the Kurdish people, but anyone even suspected of opposing or questioning Saddam's rule. Saddam was unimaginably more than just a very bad man.


I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.

Agreed, and I'll happily agree to condemn that as well.


American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region.

I agree more with the rest of your paragraph than this start. American foreign policy is not the most important factor, but just one of many vitally important factors.

I again thank you for your reply and can't agree more with your overall assessment of how complicated the issues are and the importance of discussing them beyond the extreme left and right camps that so many seek comfort in.

>> ^quantumushroom:
War crimes and rogue behavior are nothing new, they happen in every war. Of course, acting like a barbarian outside of the rules of war is what terrorists aka "insurgents" do.


You're saying that Americans have committed war crimes that were within the rules of war? You just blew my mind, dude.

bcglorf-
Just a quick responce. I may have been wrong about dates, but I contend that Bush and Cheynee were heading the CIA (I believe) in the early to late 70's, and did have a big hand in supporting both the mujahideen and Saddam through back channels, quietly. Regan supported him and his organization openly, at the time. Carter may have as well, I was too young to understand at the time.
As I understand it, Alkaida began as the V.A. for the mujahideen before morphing into a fighting force, with Osama as the leader. We supported it and him at the time. Agreed, he was not our only man in the region, but he was our guy, once.
While Saddam was monsterous, there's little room for debate there, his level of monstrocity was miniscule compared to what was happening in Africa. he gassed perhaps, at most, 10s of thousands, African warlords hacked millions to death, and raped for the same reasons, but in exponentially larger numbers. If we are to use "level of evil" as a reason to attack a foreign nation, we should do it in order, based on levels of evil, not because he tried to kill someone's daddy.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I mean about foreign policy . What I mean is, the most important factor we should consider when making forign policy is what effect that policy will have, both for them and us. Many things have to be taken into account to make a reasoned decision/estimation as to what these effects will/may be.
I also appreciate your reasoned discourse. The name calling, insulting, knee jerk reactions that have become the norm are not helpful or informative.

While Saddam was monsterous, there's little room for debate there, his level of monstrocity was miniscule compared to what was happening in Africa. he gassed perhaps, at most, 10s of thousands, African warlords hacked millions to death


Saddam's war with Iran left more than 1 million dead. I don't know the numbers for Saddam's kills with chemical weapons, but Saddam killed a lot more people with conventional arms than with chemical weapons. In his Al-Anfal campaign alone estimates are as high as 2-3 hundred thousand killed, mostly people already taken prisoner shot execution style at pre-dug mass graves. That's nearly a quarter million for just one act of Saddam's brutality against the Kurds. Unknown numbers of countless others that were even suspected of opposing Saddam and their family members were killed as well. He killed 60 random members of his own party's leadership just to ensure that when he took power no-one within his party could oppose him. He was even less discriminate about killing anyone in a suspected position of opposition. I don't want to detract from the monstrosity of what has and is still happening in Africa, but Saddam's reign of terror was I think more difficult to rival than you describe. In Rwanda, probably the single worst genocide in Africa in my generations time saw a body count of around 800,000. By all counts worse than Saddam, but not by as much as I once believed.


If we are to use "level of evil" as a reason to attack a foreign nation, we should do it in order, based on levels of evil, not because he tried to kill someone's daddy.

I agree that would be ideal, but I don't believe we always have the luxury. In the end, the nation as a whole is most interested in it's own best interests, and other considerations are all a distant second. Since I do believe that Iraq is better off for Saddam's removal, I am willing to settle for a mere convergence of American self-interest and Iraqi self-interest. Even if Bush only went in because of his daddy, or more likely to make Cheney some extra cash, I still support the action of removing Saddam from power and believe that was a massive change for the better. I believe that given the alternative between the American invasion and another 10 years of Saddam's rule, the nation of Iraq is immeasurably better off than it otherwise would be today. In other words, I support the war even though I may have entirely different reasons than the American leadership or public for doing so. I support the war even if there are a dozen other places I wish that America would have chosen instead, I still consider Saddam a good choice for removal too.


What I mean is, the most important factor we should consider when making forign policy is what effect that policy will have, both for them and us.

And that I agree with completely. I just consider that in Iraq the actions that Saddam took are much more important than American foreign policy towards him over that time. Whether America supported, ignored or actively opposed him earlier the shear magnitude of the violence and evil Saddam continually used is what should guide the current decision.