Yet another slimey slap here.  There has never been a war EVER where civilians weren't a major part of security and support.  Now you're going to blame Bush because he did it too?  Yeah, there were incidences, so blame the Blackwater employees that did it, not the whole organization. 

I guess we should consider all retired Colonels wastes of human flesh, just because YOU happen to be one.

Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2007
“Yet another slimey slap here. There has never been a war EVER where civilians weren't a major part of security and support. Now you're going to blame Bush because he did it too? Yeah, there were incidences, so blame the Blackwater employees that did it, not the whole organization.

I guess we should consider all retired Colonels wastes of human flesh, just because YOU happen to be one.” YOU ARE THE REAL WASTE!

There has NEVER been the level of civilian contractors performing services that in other wars were provided by the military during a WAR! The Cost factors are REAL and now if Blackwater is forced out of Iraq, Bush has a MAJOR problem of HOW he will replace that security to both the State Dept. and American contractors in Iraq! It all stems from the fact that our military, given the missions given it by the Commander-in-Chief, FAR exceed their capability given the size of the Army and Marines! That has caused multiple tours with too little time between tours and the abuse of our military by Bush!

I can only comment on a South African security outfit (initially known as Executive Outcomes),that was semi-mercenary and provided security (et al) to the Angolan Government during the last phases of the Angolan war and afterwards . Their brief was to guard diamond mines and other strategic projects and there was a lot of sneaky backing for these guys. They eventually grew to providing security for the oil companies and they seemed to have a lot of influence (armed to the hilt, special security vehicles and, basically, they were a law unto their own). I felt that their presence was sinister and they seemed to have a vigilante-like attitude.

The problem with people like this (and I wonder if Blackwater is the same), is that they exceed their legal boundaries and are sometimes encouraged by the "powers that be" to go beyond their brief.

If Blackwater has gone beyond its brief then they should be reined in accordingly. There is no reason why private security companies should have to back up troops. That is not their brief. Taking the law into their own hands, as some of the South African's did, is tantamount to "Approved Vigilantism"!

True, ColGene, the private services are playing a bigger part in this war than in others but then again, private security companies have taken a bigger part in everything over the last 20 or so years. When I first got in the military (The Reagan administration), you hardly ever saw private security companies. As my career progressed through the 90s, I saw private security guards working the front gates, checking access badges in secure areas, and well... almost all the security at Dugway Proving Ground, Tooelle Army Depot and other weapons disposal sites.

As far as Blackwater goes, if it wasn't for them being in New Orleans there would be NO law enforcement at all. Some friends of mine went down as volunteers a few months ago. Their motel room was broken into. When they called the police, the cops actually laughed at them, saying, "well, what did you expect" and referred them to Blackwater.

Face it, the way Clinton "balanced the budget" back in the 90s was by cutting the size of the active duty components and turned more responsibilities to the National Guard and private contractors.

"Face it, the way Clinton "balanced the budget" back in the 90s was by cutting the size of the active duty components and turned more responsibilities to the National Guard and private contractors."

The Cuts in the Military during the Clinton Administration were planned and started by Bush 41 because of the demise of the Soviet Union.

The lack of military power was known in 2000 and Bush did NOTHIONG to request an increase in the, manpower levels even after Afghanistan and Iraq. This is another failure of Bush which is costing the taxpayers far more then it should.

Again, you knowingly lie to make your point. You know as well as I do that the Bush drawdown and the Clinton drawdown were done completely different. Bush's drawdown was based on overage MOSs and cutting systems that were no longer needed. Prs. Clinton transfered most the Artillery and half the Infantry to the National Guard so the states would have to pay for them.

You were in then, you know this, but of course, you lie just so you can vomit your Blame Bush at all costs crap.

There is nothing honorable about your pathetic life.

Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2007
“Again, you knowingly lie to make your point. You know as well as I do that the Bush drawdown and the Clinton drawdown were done completely different. Bush's drawdown was based on overage MOSs and cutting systems that were no longer needed. Prs. Clinton transfered most the Artillery and half the Infantry to the National Guard so the states would have to pay for them.

You were in then, you know this, but of course, you lie just so you can vomit your Blame Bush at all costs crap”.

YOU FULL OF CRAP

The plan to use the so called Peace Dividend was developed by Cheney as Sec Def under Bush 41. That plan was put into place during Bush 41 and Clinton continued that plan. We did go too far but by 2000 Bush said in his 2000 election campaign that the Army and Marines WERE TOO SMALL. Then we had 9/11 and the deployment to Afghanistan. At that point Bush should have increased the military but did nothing. All that has NOTHING to do with Clinton. Then Bush invades Iraq. Does he move to ask Congress for a larger Army and Marines-- HELL NO! He abuses the active component by repeated tours and increases the Army tour length from 12 to 15 months. He changed the long standing policy to have twice the time at home as deployed to one year home and 15 months in Combat. He overused the Guard and Reserve and destroyed most of the equipment in the Guard, reserve and a lot of the active military's equipment. ALL because he gave the military too many tasks for the size of the force. He is the WORST Commander-in-Chief EVER and is no friend of our military. Anyone that cares a FIG for our military can not support what Bush has done to them! We should have sent Bush to Vietnam in 1968-72 for three tours instead of allowing him to miss drills in the National Guard and then giving him an Honorable Discharge HE DID NOT DESERVE!

and you Sir, should have been in the towers when they fell. That would have been the closest you coul have come to dying with honor.

there is only one answer


what ever who cares

Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2007
and you Sir, should have been in the towers when they fell.


You do not deserve to be called an American. Anyone who defends what GWB has done to our military is a disgrace. I served my country for 30 years and not like the way Bush by not obeying orders and failing to perform my duty.

any one who defends bush is anti American.
any one who defends the democrats attempts to change the Constitution is an all American.


ANY ONE WHO DEFENDS BUSH IS ANTI AMERICAN.
ANY ONE WHO DEFENDS THE DEMOCRATS ATTEMPTS TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES IS AN ALL AMERICAN.


ANY ONE WHO DEFENDS BUSH IS ANTI AMERICAN.
ANY ONE WHO DEFENDS THE DEMOCRATS ATTEMPTS TO REPLACE AMERICANS WITH MEXICANS IS AN ALL AMERICAN.


ANY ONE WHO DEFENDS BUSH IS ANTI AMERICAN.
ANY ONE THAT SAYS GENE IS AN IDIOT IS ANTI AMERICAN.
ANY ONE WHO STANDS UP FOR THE TROOPS AND DOESN'T CALL THEM BABY KILLERS IS ANTI AMERICAN.
ANY ONE WHO DEFENDS A CONGRESSMAN OR MAYBE IT WAS A SENATOR THAT GOES TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND THEN ATTACKS THIS COUNTRY, OUR PRESIDENT, AND OUR TROOPS IS AN ALL AMERICAN.




see your not the only one who can type like that.

and i guess you better call me an anti American. bush has made mistakes, and except for homeland security he hasn't, as far as i know, tried to do away with our rights.

You are a SAD IDIOT!

You know, you're pretty good there Gene P. Abel. No matter what insult I come up with, you out do it just by being yourself.

now who is the sad idiot

How is senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein going to make any money since one of them is a part owner of Backwater and the other funnels money to them?