Blackwater: CIA Outsources Assassins

It does sound like PR work for Blackwater USA. They may have fund a new market to exploit and this with US Government protection or rather impunity. 

Be the leading legal assassins for higher. 

Interesting Business concept and most likely very lucrative as well.

Blackwater are just doing the job we are not honest enough to face up to. Why do you think the government had to outsource this? Because Congress was paralysed and couldn't take decisions. Planes would have been falling out of the sky and bombs going off in our cities if Blackwater wasn't on the job. I am happy for this service to be brought back in under the government, but it doesn't mean the service isn't necessary. Maybe people need to get out of their comfort bubble and face the dangers of the world.

Where do you draw the line? And who decides?  Are they the same people who said Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass detruction.  Oooops.....

Is the government beyond the law? Do they advocate torture then too?

Will they come into your home in the middle of the night too?

Just wondering...

Well, we do know that Al Qada set up the "hit" on 9/11 and that the Taliban host Al Qada. War is justified here. War means killing people. If you want to kill only the people responsible and leave out missile hits, then you have to have an army or a group of assassins.

I prefer the second choice.

It is tricky to "draw the line" and there is the question of "who decides?", but the line must be drawn and duly elected authority must decide.

You cannot kill your way to peace, practically or philosophically

Philosophically, it is akin to f**cking for virginity.

Practically it produces two problems.One is a PR nightmare as clandestine operatives in country will be perceived as invaders and as an affront to sovereign power.

Secondly, there is no standing army to confront. You kill and they are replaced by new converts.

This was the logical failure of the 'war on terror' of Bush/Chemey and which Obama is continuing in Afghanistan.

You have to attempt to address causes which includes civics, politics, law, economics, religious pluralism and more.

You keep killing them is not going to make them less p*ssed off at you - just angrier and over time, more cagey and harder to catch.

Really? So, we didn't get peace with Germany and Japan by "killing"? LOL. Killing alone, yes, does not bring about peace, but allowing yourself to be attacked means allowing yourself to be conquered and dictated to.

Fighting is essential. Even Gandhi recognized limits to non-violence.

The problem in Afghanistan is a simple one. Lots and lots of heroin money allows feudal warlords to maintain power and resist modernization, which would mean the end of their power and a lot of their money as well.

I don't know if we should be in there now, but the war now is Obama's baby and he claimed it during the election when he declared that he would even go into the hills of Pakistan to find and kill Al Qada, clearly the statement of someone not sophisticated in foreign policy.

What we need to do is to legalize prescriptions for heroin, destroying the market value of the drugs. We need to do it world-wide. And then we need to set up a safe area, realize that the future stability of Afghanistan depends on cracking the patriarchy by getting women educated.

That is the problem.

Further, the lefties here, the other day, accused the US of "isolationism" when it came to WWII, when discussing the concentration camps. We should have done more. Now we should do "less".

Ah, but the difference was that Mother Russia, home of commies most important VIPs was under threat. So entering WWII, eventually became OK for the "progressives", the name that Stalinists in the US used at the time.

Then there were the killing fields in Cambodia, which Vietnamese communists stopped by invading and winning a war against the Khmer Rouge. Apparently the Vietnamese imposed a peace of sorts even while pissing off the Khmer Rouge, who also made their money with heroin dealing.

So, if you actually gave me some examples of when and where these policies of  "not pissing off the enemy" worked and showed how the policy of "not pissing off the enemy" was applicable in this situation, that would be fascinating and educating. :)

Fighting a sovereign nation such as Japan is in no way related to combating a transnational insurgency such as Al Qaeda/ A country can be restricted to its borders, attacked therein etc and brought to a surrender. This is the same confusion that Bush/Cheney demonstrated

A transnational insurgency can just pick up stakes and move such as Afghanistan to Yemen or Somalia. Dropping a nuke on Kabul won't fix the problem, but it could make things a damn site worse.

The Taliban never had international only domestic agenda until America made them part of the mix. Al Qaeda was tolerated by the Taliban due to ethnic not political motivations. Had Bush dealt appropriately with the Taliban and Pakistan instead of racing off to Iraq and leaving the playing field open, we wouldn't have fared so badly in Afpak since.

This is the logic failure I referenced above, and that is why Bush's Iraq misadventure and Obama's current long war in Afghanistan that I suspect will be equally as ineffective in  advancing America security or strategic interest.

I do not disagree with the civics recommendations, though I think it more complex than just heroin or female education.

The Khmer Rouge were at various times supported by the US and Britain, including training them how to place land mines. Loyalty is highly transitory. Again KR was a national not transnational movement, despite them sometimes failing to acknowledge the formal Thai-Cambodia border. Vietnam occupied militarily and imposed cruel and despotic rule.Cambodia is still looking for peace, and is still border skirmishing with the Thai's even this week.

I wasn't in on any WWII debate you had with "lefties" so I don't know what you are referencing nor the Commies comment.

Not pissing off enemies - doesn't tend to make the history books too much as a specific reference, as it doesn't result in a war. However, if you look at sovereign states cooperating where they may have opposing agendas, such as Russia and the US, Japan and China, China and the US int he last few decades you will see that economic integration and diplomatic engagement tend to be far more successful than the wars they fought in previous generations. If you want an example of a more insurgent nature, look at the agreements with PIRA in Ireland. That was not won by killing as generations can tell you.

Who  supported the Khmer Rouge is a story I know well and not relevant. The point is that it took the physical occupation of Cambodia  under the force of arms to stop the killing fields.

In a war the purpose is to kill the enemy.