Blackwater aviation.....why not use military pilots

[avbug]

You don't sound like you have any experience in the middle east, so you might want to tread carefully until you have some ground to stand on.

I have been there.

Shot up fifteen civillians, you say.

Not all the rounds in that firefight were outgoing, were they, now.

The clean little liberal yuppie scum larvae world in which you live is a little more muddied when it's hard to tell who's on your side. You don't believe civillians have died at the hands of soldiers? Here's a newsflash for you, brightspark: everyboy shooting back over there is civillian. They're insurgents...which is a fancy media word for criminals. In violation of the law of the land, in violation of rules of engagement on numerous fronts; the bad guys don't have rules, and the're doing the shooting. Soldiers, contractors, citizens, police, foriegn interested parties, and a lot of other folks are shooting back. Where one begins and the other ends...well that's not nearly so important as being the one who's left standing at the end.

Tell you what; you go there, get your ass shot off, then shoot your mouth off. How's that for a starting point? When the shooting starts, poke that big liberal brain of yours up there, pick out the innocent parties, then shoot all around them while you do your job. Once you've done that, once you've proven you can do better, then you can flaap your gums. Until then, you haven't much to offer, have you?

By your definitions, each soldier serving in the armed forces is a mercenary. Nothing but a mercenary. That soldier gets paid to fight, to serve, and too often, to be wounded or die. Does that make a soldier a mercenary? Draw a paycheck to fight a war? No...let's hope you said no (because right now your credibility rating is right about even with whale********************). How about the contractor doing the same job? Pretty blurry lines, aren't they? (You don't need to answer; just dumbly nod your head, if you have any sense about you). The lines are blurred; they're blurred because there's no difference. People serving their country, under contract to their country, to carry out the mission they're assigned. Period.

That's what they do. And then there's you. Reading the Washington Post.

Your mother must be proud. Why don't you go read another paragraph; make yourself feel better.

 

[CitationLover]

You don't sound like you have any experience in the middle east, so you might want to tread carefully until you have some ground to stand on.

I have been there.

Shot up fifteen civillians, you say.

Not all the rounds in that firefight were outgoing, were they, now.

The clean little liberal yuppie scum larvae world in which you live is a little more muddied when it's hard to tell who's on your side. You don't believe civillians have died at the hands of soldiers? Here's a newsflash for you, brightspark: everyboy shooting back over there is civillian. They're insurgents...which is a fancy media word for criminals. In violation of the law of the land, in violation of rules of engagement on numerous fronts; the bad guys don't have rules, and the're doing the shooting. Soldiers, contractors, citizens, police, foriegn interested parties, and a lot of other folks are shooting back. Where one begins and the other ends...well that's not nearly so important as being the one who's left standing at the end.

Tell you what; you go there, get your ass shot off, then shoot your mouth off. How's that for a starting point? When the shooting starts, poke that big liberal brain of yours up there, pick out the innocent parties, then shoot all around them while you do your job. Once you've done that, once you've proven you can do better, then you can flaap your gums. Until then, you haven't much to offer, have you?

By your definitions, each soldier serving in the armed forces is a mercenary. Nothing but a mercenary. That soldier gets paid to fight, to serve, and too often, to be wounded or die. Does that make a soldier a mercenary? Draw a paycheck to fight a war? No...let's hope you said no (because right now your credibility rating is right about even with whale********************). How about the contractor doing the same job? Pretty blurry lines, aren't they? (You don't need to answer; just dumbly nod your head, if you have any sense about you). The lines are blurred; they're blurred because there's no difference. People serving their country, under contract to their country, to carry out the mission they're assigned. Period.

That's what they do. And then there's you. Reading the Washington Post.

Your mother must be proud. Why don't you go read another paragraph; make yourself feel better.

now that you've beaten your chest out in that jingoistic pride do you feel ok? you might be suffering from PTSD.

i'll let the ones who paid the ultimate price, like Scott Helvenston, speak regarding the "quality" of the contractors. what about Colin Powell saying the army is broke? i forgot they know nothing.

i'll let webster talk.

mer·ce·nar·y
1.working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2.hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
3.a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4.any hireling.

take a look at definitions 2 and 3. no US troops are not mercenaries. i realize you like to simply put down people with other opinions, but please don't simplify my positions.

just to make you happy though, Blackwater=good. you convinced me.

 

[avbug]

We've had soldiers serving in the US military for the better part of two centuries who weren't US citizens...many of whom died for the United States. Are they mercenaries?

Tread VERY lightly there.

mer·ce·nar·y
1.working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2.hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
3.a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4.any hireling.

Working or acting merely for money. What makes you think a contractor, serving his country supporting the mission assigned by the President of that country and comissioned by Congress...is only acting for money. Who are you to make that judgement? Oh, that's right, you haven't been there and done that, so you wouldn't know...I guess you're nobody, when it comes to making that judgement. Thanks for clearing that up.

How many US soldiers joined the military to draw a paycheck, get college paid for, enjoy the GI bill? You don't think they joined for the rewards, or for the training? Get a clue, mate. Everybody who serves over there, in one uniform or another, or without uniform, is a VOLUNTEER...and every single one of them draws a paycheck. Not mercenaries, of course. Just doing a job that clearly you don't understand.

As most contractors are US citizens and are required to hold a security clearance, your second definition doesn't hold water. However, the United States military has also long employed, trained, used, and included among it's ranks foriegners in a variety of programs. You're not aware of this? Are these individuals mercenaries, too? Or are they made righteous because they're in the good graces of the Dept of Defense?

You'd suggest that a pilot flying in the dead of night supporting an active millitary operation from the cockpit of his piston twin engine airplane is a mercenary...a US citizen holding DoD clearance, under control of a military unit, feeding live intel and download in support of an active armed mission, a mercenary. Of course the miltary unit to which that civillian contractor pilot is entrusted would call him a valued asset. Perhaps you just know more than everybody else because you read the Washington Post. Could it be?

As many contractors are US Citizens, US soldiers who have served time and are continuing to serve in other capacities, your definition #3 falls flat. US contractors aren't serving in foriegn militaries...they're serving the United States government as contractors to the US military and US agencies.

If those contractors use individuals from foriegn countries, so be it. We have a very large number of non-US citizens working in the United States, you know. Not mercenaries either, in case you didn't know. When I was last at a US embassy abroad, many of those working in the embassy at various levels were NOT US citizens. Imagine that. They weren't mercenaries, either.

As for definition 4...anybody who is hired for anything is a mercenary, you say? That would make every US soldier a mercenary. You don't really want to go there any more, do you?

please don't simplify my positions.

You don't really have "positions," so much as you have a jumble of poorly thought out, incoherent rambings. However, they couldn't be any more simple minded than they now are, so you've little to fear.

 

[CitationLover]

i'm sorry, i was wrong, they killed 17 iraqi's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.

The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company’s employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.
Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.
The case could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael B. Mukasey, who was sworn in as attorney general last week. He may be faced with a decision to turn down a prosecution on legal grounds at a time when a furor has erupted in Congress about the administration’s failure to hold security contractors accountable for their misdeeds.
Representative David E. Price, a North Carolina Democrat who has sponsored legislation to extend American criminal law to contractors serving overseas, said the Justice Department must hold someone accountable for the shootings.
“Just because there are deficiencies in the law, and there certainly are,” Mr. Price said, “that can’t serve as an excuse for criminal actions like this to be unpunished. I hope the new attorney general makes this case a top priority. He needs to announce to the American people and the world that we uphold the rule of law and we intend to pursue this.”
Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company’s guards opened fire during the shootings, at least some with automatic weapons. Investigators have focused on one guard, identified as “turret gunner No. 3,” who fired a large number of rounds and was responsible for several fatalities.
Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.
Government officials said the shooting occurred when security guards fired in response to gunfire by other members of their unit in the mistaken belief that they were under attack. One official said, “I wouldn’t call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement.”
Among the 17 killings, three may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force to be used in response to an imminent threat, the F.B.I. agents have concluded. They concluded that Blackwater guards might have perceived a threat when they opened fire on a white Kia sedan that moved toward Nisour Square after traffic had been stopped for a Blackwater convoy of four armored vehicles.
Two people were killed in the car, Ahmed Haithem Ahmed and his mother, Mohassin, a physician. Relatives said they were on a family errand and posed no threat to the Blackwater convoy.
Investigators said Blackwater guards might have felt endangered by a third, and unidentified, Iraqi who was killed nearby. But the investigators determined that the subsequent shootings of 14 Iraqis, some of whom were shot while fleeing the scene, were unprovoked.
Under the firearms policy governing all State Department employees and contractors, lethal force may be used “only in response to an imminent threat of deadly force or serious physical injury against the individual, those under the protection of the individual or other individuals.”
A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal. One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.
Anne E. Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, said she would have no comment until the F.B.I. released its findings.
Although investigators are confident of their overall findings, they have been frustrated by problems with evidence that hampered their inquiry. Investigators who arrived more than two weeks after the shooting could not reconstruct the crime scene, a routine step in shooting inquiries in the United States.




Even the total number of fatalities remains uncertain because of the difficulty of piecing together what happened in a chaotic half-hour in a busy square. Moreover, investigators could not rely on videotapes or photographs of the scene, because they were unsure whether bodies or vehicles might have been moved.



Bodies of a number of victims could not be recovered. Metal shell casings recovered from the intersection could not be definitively tied to the shootings because, as one official described it, “The city is littered with brass.”
In addition, investigators did not have access to statements taken from Blackwater employees, who had given statements to State Department investigators on the condition that their statements would not be used in any criminal investigation like the one being conducted by the F.B.I.
An earlier case involving Blackwater points to the difficulty the Department of Justice may be facing in deciding whether and how to bring charges in relation to the Sept. 16 shootings. A Blackwater guard, Andrew J. Moonen, is the sole suspect in the shooting on Dec. 24 of a bodyguard to an Iraqi vice president.
Investigators have statements by witnesses, forensic evidence, the weapon involved and a detailed chronology of the events drawn up by military personnel and contractor employees.
But nearly 11 months later, no charges have been brought, and officials said a number of theories had been debated among prosecutors in Washington and Seattle without a resolution of how to proceed in the case.
Mr. Moonen’s lawyer, Stewart P. Riley of Seattle, said he had had no discussions about the case with federal prosecutors.
Some lawmakers and legal scholars said the Sept. 16 case dramatized the need to clarify the law governing private armed contractors in a war zone. Workers under contract to the Defense Department are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA, but many, including top State Department officials, contend that the law does not apply to companies like Blackwater that work under contract to other government agencies, including the State Department.
Representative Price’s bill would extend the MEJA legislation to all contractors operating in war zones. The bill passed the house 389 to 30 last month and is now before the Senate.
He said it cannot be applied retroactively to the Sept. 16 case, but he said that the guards who killed the Iraqis must be brought to justice, under the War Crimes Act or some other law.

 

[LivestockTony]

You'd suggest that a pilot flying in the dead of night supporting an active millitary operation from the cockpit of his piston twin engine airplane is a mercenary...a US citizen holding DoD clearance, under control of a military unit, feeding live intel and download in support of an active armed mission, a mercenary. Of course the miltary unit to which that civillian contractor pilot is entrusted would call him a valued asset.

I've been following this thread with some interest... AvBug, you're not wrong for the most part, but the above quoted is not a strong point...

The Flying Tigers (AVG) were a mercenary group by any reasonable definition. That didn't preclude them from being a valued asset by either the Chinese or the US. On patrols in the current war, we occasionally had pathfinders and intel assets who went by a gazillion different names, but what they were were local mercenaries.. That extends to organized combat units also- there is a big difference between the mercenary Afghan Militia Force (ca 2003) and the non-mercenary Afghan National Army (ca2004 and onwards) for example. Either way, those units were valued.

We never considered _any_ of our support, local national, KBR, other DoD contractor, US military, allied millitary... none of them we considered mercenaries. (Of course, they were all still pogues!)But non-uniformed combat units, we sure as heck did. And that would (in at least one case in support of my unit did) extend to pilots as well.

Mercenaries, contractors, whatever, most certainly do fight under the same flag as soldiers, and assume the same risks. But to say that a contractor is equivalent to a uniformed serviceman is flat wrong. The infantryman standing on his patch of sand carries the whole weight of the United States behind him in a way that Blackwater contractor does not-- even if the BW guy is better equiped and trained, and even if the BW guy is doing something more high-profile and important!

That's how it felt to me anyways.

-TF
(3 deployments, both major theatres, 82d ABN Div, MOS 11B2P, got out in 2006)

 

[avbug]

Tony,

I don't entirely aree, but I don't intend to argue with you. You've earned the right to hold that opinion, without question.

Fly safe.

 

[Pistlpetet]

The illusion of trying to have an intelligent discussion on Flight Info is about as successful as talking to a 4 year old, or your dog.

A bunch of people S--- talking about nothing they know about first hand!

 

[pilotyip]

You are right the people who know don't talk

 

[xjhawk]

i was hoping the blackwater incident would not come up on this thread. But since someone highjacked my thread, I will respond. Iraq, as much as I do not like it, is a US government operation. I think those operators.....contractor etc are just making best of a situation and bringing home the money for them and their family. Ask me if I did not get a 15 grand bonus for rejoining the army would I have done it? No I would not. How about a friend of mine who was offered like 80 grand to stay in as a navagator in the navy.....yes, 80 grand over 5 years. He would not have stayed in....he does not like the plane he is on right now and no chances of transfere. You are a fool if you think money was not a serious point in every soldiers decision making process. AS for killing civilians....give that argument up.....it was rediculous durning the vietnam war. What our liberals need to realise......war = civilian deaths and accidental friendly casualties. Unless there was intent on murdering someone, guess what, it was an accident, even if it was bad decisions. Guess what? in the heat of things like battle, sometimes the best decisions are not made. Now, I will comment on this video I saw on you tube. It was some contractors riding in a car, shooting at all the random cars that drove by. Now that, if it was the authorized practive, is wrong. yes, its a war zone, but give me a break, thats not doing anyone any good.

I will say this.....also, if someone came to my house, killed my dog because it was barking, then accidently killed a member of my family.....with no remorse....guess what, I would be the first to be shooting at those people. We must be careful in our operations.........otherwise the problem will just get worse.

 

[xjhawk]

sorry i went on there...... there have been wrongs in iraq, but take blackwater out of iraq, and the state department is left high and dry.

 

[T-prop]

Where did CitationLover go?

I'm bettin' he'll top 2,000 posts before '08.

Any takers?

 

[avbug]

Making love to his or her Citation, probably.

That's gotta hurt.

 

[CitationLover]

Making love to his or her Citation, probably.

That's gotta hurt.

right up the apu.

what's to argue anymore, we just get the "you didn't serve so you know nothing" put downs. avbug thinks i compare foreign nationals in service (whether it be for citizenship, a transfer program, or simply voluteering) to mercenaries. nope.

blackwater aviation is no different than any other cheaply run 135 outfit that'll push people to fly and chinzes on it's training as has been documented. blackwater as an organization has bait and switched ground personnel in telling them they'll be making one thing and paying them something a lot less once they signed up.

Columbians Paid $1,000/month, Americans Paid $10,000/month
About three dozen former Colombian soldiers are engaged in a pay dispute with Blackwater USA, saying their salaries for security work in Iraq turned out to be one-quarter what they had been promised by recruiters in Bogota.
The dispute sheds light on the international flavor of Blackwater's work force and the pay disparities that characterize the burgeoning private military industry.
The Colombians say they are earning $34 a day, a fraction of what Blackwater pays its American contractors in the Iraq war zone.
The security company, based in Moyock, N.C., protects U.S. diplomatic personnel in Iraq under a contract with the State Department.
According to reports last week in the Colombian news magazine Semana and the Financial Times of London, the 35 Colombians - mostly seasoned counter insurgency troops - alleged in a letter to Blackwater that recruiters had promised them salaries of $4,000 a month.
They said it was only when they were given their contracts barely hours before leaving Bogota that they learned they would be paid $34 a day, or about $1,000 a month.
"We were tricked by the company," one former Colombian army captain was quoted as saying in the Financial Times.
American contractors can earn $10,000 a month or more working for Blackwater and its competitors in Iraq.
Chris Taylor, a Blackwater spokesman, was quoted by the Financial Times as saying the dispute sprang from a change in contract terms.
"One contract expired, another task order was bid upon, and so the numbers are different," he said.
Taylor also told the Financial Times that the Colombians alleging that they had been hired under false pretenses were offered a release from their contracts, but only two accepted.
Taylor did not return phone calls but confirmed his comments in an e-mail to The Virginian-Pilot.
The pay dispute highlights one of the realities of the private military industry's globalized work force, said Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, a Washington-based trade group of which Blackwater is a member.
"People from some countries get paid less than others," Brooks said. "In Iraq, I think the scales are very much related to what they do, the level of risk and their capabilities."
Americans enjoy a natural advantage because they are likely to have better English language skills and higher security clearances, Brooks said.
Former soldiers from Chile, South Africa, the Philippines and a variety of other countries have turned up on the payrolls of private military companies in Iraq, sometimes resulting in political repercussions in their home countries.
The Philippines banned its citizens from working in Iraq after several were killed in insurgent attacks. In South Africa, a tough new anti-mercenary bill moving through Parliament would prohibit South Africans from participating in any armed-conflict areas without the permission of their government.

well evidently the South African government considers working for blackwater "mercenary" activity........

any comments avbug on the nyt report since they seem to dismiss most of your allegations of what happened? based on the report it seems the military thinks, yes they just shot up a bunch of civilians.

One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.

also, to use your own words:

You've earned the right to hold that opinion, without question.

have these organizations done that also?
http://www.ivaw.org/
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

read what they think about blackwater.

 

[satpak77]

as an aside, how are the contractors dealing with (if any exists) the ground-to-air missile threat in Afghan?

Or now, after XXX years of US occupation in the area, is that threat pretty much non-existent now?

 

[avbug]

what's to argue anymore, we just get the "you didn't serve so you know nothing" put downs.

I said no such thing. In your case, it's not a matter of "service." It's simply that you haven't a clue what you're talking about...you think you do because you read the entertainment rags...like the New York Times and Washington Post.

What do I think about the article? About as much as I think of the rest of the popular media articles on the subject. Worth the paper it's printed on...just enough to line a birdcage.

Those articles don't dismiss a thing I've said, nor do they represent the truth; just someone's version of it.

For many years, sheepdipped soldiers in many colors have been doing their duty out of uniform in different forms, so seldom with recognition, and what little there is, typically the putrid mud you sling. Of course, many serve the US out of uniform and get paid for their work, performing a legitimate mission on behalf of their country. You might have us believe this is a crime; it's not.

The US government employs a contractor to fulfill a mission, and the contractor fulfills that contract as the contractor sees fit. So long as the letter of the contract is fufilled, then the contractor may hire whom they will.

Crawl back under your newspapers and revel in your expertise, if it makes you feel better. Lacking the power to do anything, and lacking the gumption to try, perhaps it's the best you can do. Good luck with that.