Yea, sounds cheery. “deprive the towns” to be an “example to others” sounds like a great idea. We’re practicing terrorism now. Super duper. But it is all in the name of freedom! It is scary when commentators begin to sound exactly like the “enemy.” The phrase “The remaining dissenters must be harshly dealt with. Fear can be a good thing. Homicidal Americans and their enablers must be killed. And their punishment must be an example to others” is probably similar to what Osama says to rally his troops before a nice attack.
I don’t know whether he would argue so, But I certainly would. Actually I’ve a hard time finding targets more legitimate than the people and administrations which are issuing the orders. They’re much more so than the soldiers on the ground, for instance, IMO.
Beside, the US governement seems to agree, since both the Iraki ministeries in charge of the army/security and the Iraki presidential palaces were considered fair game during the war.
Agreed. Military command posts are among the top priority targets in warfare. It’s perfectly reasonable to extend the same logic a step beyond and target the top leadership.
Maybe I’m missing something but I have no idea of what point Libertarian was trying to make. He asked if the Pentagon and President should be considered fair targets, several of us say “yes”, and that’s it? By his initails tone it seemed he was disagreeing with something I said. Am I missing anything here?
You burned Jewish holy scriptures? Damn, that’s mean. Wha’d you do, raid a synagogue? Did you say to each other as you passed it around, “Have a nagilla”? <singing> Have a nagilla, have a nagilla…
The Iraqi farce would be a funny comedy of errors if it weren’t so tragic. It seems the local Iraqi police in Falluja did not help the Americans because in the past the Americans just shoot at any Iraqi, police or not, and several Iraqi police have been killed in the past. So the Iraqis just let the Americans fend for themselves (not to mention that their sympathies may be with the rebels to begin with).
It seems everybody concerned believes things are going to get much worse in Falluja. How the American authority believes this can be good and allows it is mind-boggling.
I would agree with the above statement, that for example if Blackwell personell were contracted to protect a millitary installation, they are fair game combatants for all intents and purposes.
My point of contention is the use of the term mercenaries, and what the functional definition is of mercenaries in this context. I would tend to see mercenaries as someone contracted more for offensive/covert work especially with regards to these people being combatants in general.
I would hardly fault a US company with facilities in Iraq (especially ones that predate the invasion) for wanting heavily armed security forces in place to protect them in a war zone. Writing these people off as “asking for it” is almost as rude as say cops or firefighters deserve to be killed in the line of duty. Its a job, one that many of these people are ideally suited for with their millitary backgrounds. Ideally nobody ever has to fire a shot and nobody ever needs to be hurt. Most of them are probably far more concerned with getting home safe than being part of any grand political agenda.
These people are not combatants, they are a security guards with tons of quality training and good equipment. As long as they stick to the facilities that they are hired to protect, they should be considered non-combatants and not seen as a threat since they have no business or real desire to enforce anything other then the integrity of their clients or employers facilities.
As far as I am concerned they can do whatever they want. I just don’t think they have any inherent right to do it.
I disagree. Their doing business there is part of the American purpose of occupation. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.
BTW, would you defend the right of foreign companies doing business in LA to fly in their paramilitaries from other countries during the riots? And parade around town with guns blazing? All they want to do is provide security for their company.
I disagree 100%. They are there to enforce the rules of one side against the other side. Suppose they are protecting the XYZ refinery. They are protecting it FOR the USA and against the Iraqis who do not accept the jurisdiction of the USA. There is just No way around it. They are using force in favor of the USA and against the rebels. they are therefore fair targets for the rebels. Please read the articles I cited above. These are bad ass guys doing bad ass stuff in a bad ass neighborhood. They are 100% legitimate targets, all of them, at any time.
A soldier is a legit target even when his duty that day is guarding a kindergarden. These guys may be guarding a kindergarden today but tomorrow they may be helping troops. They have no other business in Iraq than to further the occupation. they are paid by the US government. I don’t care what you think, I think they are there as occupation forces and they are therefore legitimate targets.
Sailor already responded here, but I thought I’d chime in for no good reason. OK, basically, the contention that a lot of people have is that these “contractors” are hired by the United States military/government to protect captured interests, military camps, and bopdyguard installed leaders. This has nothing to do with a company hiring security guards for its offices. This is a government operation, and that is where the objection comes from.
Well, this is also a point of contention. Sailor’s analogy of a foreign company flying in paramilitary troops, albeit civilian, during a riot situation and issuing them orders to shoot at rioters may be taken as a touch move aggressive than a dumpy guy with a nightstick.
If Los Angeles was an active war zone where their facilities would be harassed on a regualr basis, I would see no problem with it. They have just as much right to defend their facilities as any US company on US soil.
Now whos being disengenious? Do you have a cite for Private security firms “parading around with guns blazing”?
No, they are protecting the interests of their employer a private company, their agenda is that of their employer, not the Shrub empire. I don’t see this as exclusive to us. I’m sure plenty of other non US owned companies are doing the same thing hiring high firepower security to make sure their installations are not soft, free to hit targets.
Rules of engagement are the issue here. Do they blaze away at anyone on the steet who “looks shifty”? This is bad and inappropriate. Use of lethal force on people who force entry to the facility to loot it and or assault its occupants is a different story. I would support the latter If an Iraqi based company with high value facilities here did not have heavily armed security I would actually be surprised considering the reactionary elements within our own society.
Also many people here do not realize there are levels of security guard above and beyong the “dumpy guy with a nightstick”. Highly skilled professional security outfits exist all over. They have more in common with SWAT teams or secret service details than Joe Lunchbucket patrolling your apartment complex from 10pm-6am. This does not make them warmongers just twitching for a chance to kill someone, it just means they have the tools and the training to exert lethal force if called for.
Nonetheless, put yourself in a dissident Iraqi’s position. There are these fellas who wander around with heavy weapons and guard military, civilian, and economic interests. They are in the hire of the invading country. Do you ignore them happily, or take your potshots at what is available?
Yea, those are the guys in the James Bond movies and games. They have pretty bad AI, though.
I realize that private security firms are very advanced and professional groups. I highly doubt that these fellows are walking about committing atrocities and such - they’re just doing their job. Unfortunately for them, their job involves the very real chance of being shot at, and this they know, as well. One of the chaps who died in the recent attacks wrote home saying he loved his job. Clearly, he thought he was doing some good, and felt it was worth the risk. That is good for him.
Am I going to be surprised when one of them dies? Not really. Sucks, yea, but thousands of people have already died in this conflict, and heavily armed mercenaries in the emply of the invading government aren’t exactly ICRC volunteers.
Kinda sucks more that 9 Iraqi police got shot by American troops when they were trying to arrest someone.
I just don’t understand why only the Americans can shoot in this war. Look, these people are paid by the US government to enforce rights granted by the US government. The rebels do not recognize those rights granted by the US government so, to them, those companies have no right to be there. Simple as that. The companies can do whatever the fuck they want. And the rebels can shoot them. What’s so difficult to understand? The rebels did not grant the license to do business there and they do not recognize it.
Interesting remarks by O’Reilly. I’ve seen similar ones in right-wing blogs, and letters to the editor.
I think the right has forgotten that we are there as liberators, not occupiers. It would be ironic if we had to obliterate the town in order to liberate it.
Well, duh. War is over. No more shooting allowed. Didn’t you see the big Mission Accomplished banner? I think someone forgot to tell the other side that, though.
And, at the risk of Godwinizing this thread, regarding O’Reilly: I imagine Germans heard a lot of this sort of commentary prior to WWII.
The American Right is really beginning to scare me. They’ve always been a little fanatic, but they’ve gotten really creepy over the last couple of years.
That doesn’t seem to stop people from shooting at them.
I’m not talking about Walmart. I’m talking about companies that do legitimate business in unstable or dangerous countries. If I am working in Colombia or some former Soviet province, I would want my protection to be someone competant like a former Army Ranger, not some fat rent-a-cop.
Without private security firms that provide REAL security, companies would never do business in a lot of places that need their business.
Except that what people like you seem to forget is that regardless of whether we were right to go into Iraq now, pulling out now (in other words loosing the war) would cause the country to decend into total chaos. Would that satisfy your sense of self-righteousness?
So what do the rebels get by “winning”? The right to govern a nation of rubble? Is that what most Iraqis want for the future of their nation?
You’re right. It is important to note that the ICRC headquarters in Afghanistan were bombed twice. By America. Go freedom! The ICRC actually has a fairly strong record, and manages to keep its presence where most organizations can’t. They tend to flee when America starts carpet bombing places, though.
We’re talking about American military compouds, American officials, and oil refineries America took over, not Iraqi owned and run business.
I love this argument. While true on a level, it is like stabbing someone and saying, “Well, if I don’t finish killing him, he’ll only suffer more.” I don’t think anyone on this thread said that we should pull out immediately, and I don’t know where you got that idea.
I personally believe it would be best to hand over control to the UN. While they have questionably efficiency, it would do much for the reputation of America in the world (especially the Islamic world) and the overall stability of Iraq.
Methinks you don’t understand the mindset of a rebel.
What did Le Resistance get by “winning” their fight against the Nazi occupation?
To some people, having a soverign nation and to be free to do what the people want is more important than having the trains run on time.
