PDA

View Full Version : Civilian Helicopter down in Iraq


SASless
23rd Jan 2007, 20:58
Blackwater Aviation appears to have lost an aircraft with five persons aboard. Intial reports are all five killed. No other details yet.

I assume it is a Bell 412 although they are opeating MD-500's there.

NickLappos
23rd Jan 2007, 21:49
That helo is as "civilian" as Dick Cody is.

wg13_dummy
23rd Jan 2007, 22:14
I think what you meant to say was 'condolences to those that perished and regards to the familes involved', Nick.


I know thats what I would have said first.

Bat-Off
23rd Jan 2007, 22:18
Five dead in Iraq chopper crash

From correspondents in Washington
January 24, 2007 07:41am
Article from: Agence France-Presse
Font size: + (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21109505-1702,00.html#) - (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21109505-1702,00.html#)
Send this article: Print (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21109505-1702,00.html#) Email (http://www.news.com.au/email/popup/0,23605,21109505-1702,00.html)

A HELICOPTER owned by the US security firm Blackwater USA crashed in Baghdad today, killing five people, a US defence official said.

"A quick reaction force and Blackwater employees went to the crash scene and found the remains of five people," said the official, who asked not to be identified.

The identity or nationality of the five was not immediately known, nor was the cause of the crash.

The MH-6 helicopter crashed about 7.30pm AEDT yesterday in Baghdad's Rusafa districts, the official said.

It came after 13 US troops were killed in the crash of a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter on Saturday, north-east of Baghdad, which officials believe may have been shot down with a shoulder-fired surface to air missile.

NickLappos
24th Jan 2007, 01:02
WG13, forgive the black humor. No dirsrespect intended, just stating the facts.

Those fellows fly a tough mission, they get paid a bunch, and have their eyes wide open as they do. And they'd be the first to understand why "civilian" is the wrong word, as well as to understand the risks they take.

Here is a pair of tapes blackwater pilots have made - note that they call themselves Commandos, and that the second tape is the helo dropping off Blackwater snipers on a roof top, where they engage enemy targets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF2NvPMSrTg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZDcTDetTS4&mode=related&search=

Hippolite
24th Jan 2007, 01:30
Nick

I appreciate the black humor, thanks

Every time there is any sort of accident reported on PPrune the bandwidth is taken up with messages of condolence and RIP type posts, often from people completely unconnected with the event. I myself (cynical bast..d) find them a bit superfluous and almost a case of posting for the sake of it.

There are some exceptions but it seems a bit over the top to me on many occasions. I am not saying that all accidents resulting in loss of life are not a tragedy but do we raelly have to post public condolences in many cases for people not directly or in some cases not remotely known to us? I think that the posting of such can be trite and in many cases is best left unsaid.

blave
24th Jan 2007, 01:56
Aye, what Hippolite said.

Dave Blevins



Nick
I appreciate the black humor, thanks
Every time there is any sort of accident reported on PPrune the bandwidth is taken up with messages of condolence and RIP type posts, often from people completely unconnected with the event. I myself (cynical bast..d) find them a bit superfluous and almost a case of posting for the sake of it.
There are some exceptions but it seems a bit over the top to me on many occasions. I am not saying that all accidents resulting in loss of life are not a tragedy but do we raelly have to post public condolences in many cases for people not directly or in some cases not remotely known to us? I think that the posting of such can be trite and in many cases is best left unsaid.

SASless
24th Jan 2007, 02:33
Aye Lads....they knew the risks...they volunteered...and except for enough NVG time....I might have been one of them. That does not mean they will not be missed or they do not have loved ones that will mourn their passing.

They were doing their bit in this fight against terrorism we have going on....seems they were at the cutting edge of things. Those folks have earned a reputation of going to the assistance of friendly troops in need of help in the past. I know of one occasion where they flew into a very nasty place and dropped ammunition to folks that really, really needed it....and then hauled out some wounded.

A bit of banter is fine but let's remember what it is all about. Blackwater has lost 20+ people in Iraq. This ain't an offshore contract someplace.

Scissorlink
24th Jan 2007, 03:32
Curious that In the second video in the first few seconds you see a 530 hovering in space on the edge of the building when there is lots of room to land bit more forward more out of sight....just wondering if any miltary guys out there could answer the reasoning behind it ??


cheers SL

feelerup
24th Jan 2007, 07:31
You must really be a dummy #13
those guys were mercenaries , and while its sad they died, fake condolences are not called for !
All these feelings for people you had no idea even existed show a need in you .

NickLappos
24th Jan 2007, 09:34
Beyond shedding tears, I could ask this question, "Exactly how legal is it for paid mercenaries to be flying armed helicopters or let off on rooftops to kill people? Where is the chain of command, and what is international law in that respect?"

I could ask the same questions of people who are paid to go to Italy, walk down the street and then put a sandbag over someone's head, and then kidnap them to Turkey for some fun and games in a secret prison.

For our international ppruners, I am not the only American who asks these questions, and not the only one who votes on what I know in my heart to be the shocking answers.

spencer17
24th Jan 2007, 10:06
Hi All,
i'm just curious who's baby "Blackwater" is. I never heard something about them before the George W Bush era. And how legal is this operation. Or is just someone playing "King of the world" and makes his own rules. And if, all the best wishes for my US Friends for 2008 elections. Things can only become better.
I know the saying with the glass house and throwing stones. Germany also had better times:}.

Always happy landings
spencer17

Bravo73
24th Jan 2007, 10:10
Hi All,
i'm just curious who's baby "Blackwater" is.

Wikipedia entry for Blackwater:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA


I'll let others speculate as to the actual backers and intentions of Blackwater ops... :E

spencer17
24th Jan 2007, 10:18
@Bravo73
Thank you for the link !

spencer17

diginagain
24th Jan 2007, 10:35
............
those guys were mercenaries , and while its sad they died, fake condolences are not called for !
All these feelings for people you had no idea even existed show a need in you .

Whether or not these guys were mercs, they were still human-beings. Respect costs nothing, and I have a feeling WG13 is as aware of their existence as SASLess, Nick and most other mil aviators, and we don't do fake condolences for our brethren.

AndyJB32
24th Jan 2007, 10:35
Just curious, and not sure this is the appropriate forum to ask this question on or not, but who would take out contracts for companies like Blackwater? Are they employed by the US government, or private US companies with interests in Iraq? If they are employed by private companies, how much co-operation with the military would be involved?

JimEli
24th Jan 2007, 16:19
This American sleeps better at night (figuratively and literally) knowing that organizations like Blackwater exist and operate, and that my government has the backbone to employee them.

My condolences to those that perished and regards to the familes involved.

SASless
24th Jan 2007, 16:21
If one does a bit Google searching....one can find out all sorts of things about Blackwater the company, contracts, training programs, and aviation assets. If one is really good....one can subscribe to their weekly news letter. For you English folks out there....it is free (google and the newsletter).


From Yahoo...

4 Americans in Iraq crash shot in head

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago

Four of the five Americans killed when a U.S. security company's helicopter crashed in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad were shot execution style in the back the head, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday.

A senior Iraqi military official said a machine gunner downed the helicopter, but a U.S. military official in Washington said there were no indications that the aircraft, owned by Blackwater USA, had been shot out of the sky. Two Sunni insurgent groups, separately, claimed responsibility for the crash.

In Washington, a U.S. defense official said four of the five killed were shot in the back of the head but did not know whether they were still alive when they were shot. The defense official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The helicopter was shot down after responding to assist a U.S. Embassy ground convoy that came under fire in a Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad, said a U.S. diplomatic official in Washington.

A second helicopter also was struck, but there were no casualties among its crew, said the diplomatic official, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to make statements.

The doomed helicopter swooped into electrical wires before the crash. U.S. officials said it was not clear if gunfire brought the aircraft down or caused its pilot to veer into the wires during evasive manuevers.

The Iraqi official, who also declined to be identified because details had not been made public, said the four were shot in the back of the head while they were on the ground. The crash occurred in an old neighborhood of narrow streets on the east bank of the Tigris River, north of the central city.

In separate fighting Wednesday, U.S. and Iraqi troops battled gunmen firing heavy weapons from concrete high-rises in another Sunni insurgent stronghold, on the west bank of the Tigris north of the heavily fortified Green Zone. Iraq's defense minister said as many as 30 militants were killed and 27 captured.

Apache attack helicopters buzzed past the tall buildings and radio towers along Haifa Street, while several Humvees drove on the tree-lined street below. Gunfire rang in the background as shells fell, according to AP Television News footage.

The U.S. military said the targeted raids were intended to clear the area of militants, dubbing the operation dubbed Tomahawk Strike 11. The clashes were the second major fighting to break out in the area in less than a month.

In the aftermath of Tuesday's Blackwater helicopter crash, U.S. forces were planning to blow up the wreckage to prevent people from scavenging equipment, the Iraqi official said.

Blackwater USA confirmed that five Americans employed by the North Carolina-based company as security professionals were killed, but provided no identities or other details.

On Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad offered condolences for the five Americans killed.

"We lost five fine men," Khalilzad told reporters during a round-table discussion at the embassy in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.

He said he had traveled with the men who were killed and had gone to the morgue to view the bodies, but offered no further details beyond saying that it was difficult to determine what happened because of "the fog of war."

Another American official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said three Blackwater helicopters were involved. One had landed for an unknown reason and one of the Blackwater employees was shot at that point, he said.

That helicopter apparently was able to take off but a second one then crashed in the same area, he added without explaining the involvement of the third helicopter.

The Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television said the 1920 Revolution Brigades insurgent group claimed responsibility for shooting down the helicopter and showed a video taken by a cell phone of a mass of still-smoldering twisted metal that it was said was the wreckage of the chopper.

Another Sunni insurgent group, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, also claimed responsibility and posted identity cards of men who were on the helicopter on a Web site, including at least two that bore the name of Arthur Laguna, who was later identified by his mother as among those killed.

Laguna was a 52-year-old pilot for Blackwater who previously served in the Army and the California National Guard, his mother, Lydia Laguna, of Rio Linda, Calif., told the AP. She said she received a call from her other son, also a Blackwater pilot in Baghdad, notifying her of Arthur's death.

Witnesses in the Fadhil neighborhood told the AP that they saw the helicopter go down after gunmen on the ground opened fire. Accounts varied, but all were consistent that at least one person operating the aircraft had been shot and badly hurt before the crash.

Blackwater USA provides security for State Department officials in Iraq, trains military units from around the world, and works for corporate clients.

"These untimely deaths are a reminder of the extraordinary circumstances under which our professionals voluntarily serve to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people," the Blackwater statement said.

Katy Helvenston, mother of Scott Helvenston, a Blackwater employee who died in March 2004 when a frenzied mob of insurgents ambushed a supply convoy they were escorting through Fallujah, said Tuesday's crash "just breaks my heart."

"I'm so sick of these kids dying," she said.

Before Tuesday's crash, at least 22 employees of Blackwater Security Consulting or Blackwater USA had died in Iraq as a result of war related violence, according to the Web site iCasualties.org, which tracks foreign troop fatalities in Iraq.

The crash of the small surveillance helicopter, believed to be a version of the Hughes Defender that was developed during the Vietnam War, was the second associated with the U.S. war effort in Iraq in four days.

A U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter went down Saturday northeast of Baghdad, killing all 12 service members on board. The American military in Baghdad has refused to confirm a report by a Pentagon official that debris at the crash site indicated the helicopter was shot out of the air by a surface-to-air missile.

Geoffersincornwall
24th Jan 2007, 16:51
Yes - but what the hell has this got to do with the war on terrorism. I seem to remember that a congressional committee found that there was no connection between Al Queda and Iraq. Whatever the situation now it certainly wasn't the situation at the start of this debacle. This is a poor quality president presiding over a poorly managed and ill conceived foreign policy disaster that has, for the time being at least, diminished the standing of my friends in the US in the eyes of the rest of the world and compromised the sense of sadness we feel when chopper guys buy the farm in the course of earning their daily bread.

JimEli

For 'backbone' read $$$$$$$$ (it's easy when it's not your money, our lot do it every day)

G
:(

SASless
24th Jan 2007, 17:51
Perhaps if one would read past the headlines you would see the report showed no direct connection between Saddam/Iraq and Al Qaeda/911. It did confirm contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence officers. One might also recall Saddam provided financial assistance to family members of Palestinian suicide bombers after their loved one took a one way ride on the TNT Express.

Perhaps the difference between our two countries is we prefer not fighting wars on our own ground and try to fight them in someone else's ground. That is both good and bad if you consider that makes such things a much more distant and less threatening situation for Joe Six Pack here in the USA.

I endorse the concept of reading about Suicide Bombers doing themselves in somewhere besides Main Street, US of A.

Perhaps the Channel is not wide enough....as the UK seems to have had the bad luck to experience the effectiveness of the Suicide bomber and we on the far side of the Atlantic have escaped that thus far.

Who knows how long that will be is the question.

Geoffersincornwall
24th Jan 2007, 18:14
At risk of getting away from the thread let me say that I tremble every time I hear Americans talking about terrorist bombers. For 30 years we had to put up with the IRA bombers killing our innocents with bombs that were paid for with funds raised, quite openly, in America. Terrorism was something that happened somewhere else until 9/11 and then, and only then did we see those funds begin to wane and the IRA begin to talk turkey.

It was just 5 years ago that I got on my bicycle (literally) and cycled down to Portsmouth, got on a ferry to Le Havre and then cycled along the Normandy beaches. I went all the way to the Omaha Beach Cemetery to pay my personal homage to the young Americans who gave their lives so that I could have the freedom to berate some of their sons and grandsons for seeing the light on Terrorism a little late in the day. Churchill once said "you can always trust the Americans to do the right thing - eventually". Well, I'm waiting.

G

:hmm:

SASless
24th Jan 2007, 19:29
I suppose visiting a grave yard is might be a way of claiming the high moral ground in a debate. Perhaps, it is the mass graves in Iraq that Saddam's regime filled with his victims that would be the more appropriate venue to use for such a basis to an argument.

I do love the IRA funding argument, and it does have some validity, however to think the IRA got a support from the vast majority of the American population is a real stretch. I will bet you 999 of a 1000 Americans do not even know the difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland much less why the fuss that went on.

I will also bet those same folks could not find the place on any map of the world. Remember, we are the folks who do not have passports or speak anything but American English.

Geoffersincornwall
24th Jan 2007, 19:55
We're going to get our wrists slapped if we carry on like this SAS but I'm the right side of a hot toddy (going down with the flu) and the debate is more stimulating than swotting for my tech exam (Friday).
1. I do not tar the great American population with the same brush as you say but the folk on the hill would not listen to our pleas for help until 9/12.
2. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist. He was a brutal dictator and we hate what he stood for and what he did. Only history will judge whether his removal was worth the lives and mayhem a poorly run war has caused. Building a case for war on lies and half truths is not, however, a very good start.
I respect your position SAS, maybe we should move on before we get our arses kicked for playing out our feelings in what is meant to be a serious forum.

Geoffers
:ok:

Flying Lawyer
24th Jan 2007, 20:00
SAS

If you're right about the average American's knowledge of affairs in the rest of the world, it would explain why it was so easy for President Bush and his Administration to con so many people into transferring their understandable anger following 9/11 from Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. ;)
'Get Bin Laden' was cleverly (credit due) turned into 'Get Saddam Hussein' remarkable quickly.

Although to be entirely fair, from what I read and hear direct, a substantial proportion of them now realise they were conned and aren't too happy about it.

rjsquirrel
24th Jan 2007, 20:04
Any correlation between the Iraqi invasion and the war on terrorism is fictional, and existed only in the minds of several top US officials who now admit they were wrong. Even Chaney said that he "never said there was a link between Iraq and Al Queda." The back-peddling by the administration is eye-watering.

Only those who cannot think still believe that the war on Iraq has been good for the war on terrorism. Even the CIA has publiclly said otherwise. And every time I read some right winged warmonger tell me he can sleep better because we killed 100,000 Iraqis, I know we need another election, fast.

170'
24th Jan 2007, 20:07
Sasless...:ok:

hotzenplotz
24th Jan 2007, 20:58
Since the beginning of the year 2007 contractors are subject to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Before that they were immune to the iraqi law. I wonder if we will see that they find other legal loopholes.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/civucmj.htm

SASless
24th Jan 2007, 21:53
RJ....

Perhaps a check on the time line between votes in Congress authorizing the war and the time when things started going south, would show an amazing correlation between those now screaming foul and that point in the time line.

You reckon some of the current naysayers contemplated a short sweet deal like Gulf One and now that anything but that has developed....they are now embarrassed they did not challenge the decision they supported at the time of their vote.

I would suggest they see the war as a tar baby and are trying their best to blame anyone but themselves for not standing on principle. If they were so opposed to war, this war, or any war....why did they not take that principled stand and vote against it before they voted for it. Just the opposite of John Kerry who voted for it before he voted against it.

rjsquirrel
24th Jan 2007, 22:06
Couple of problems with your point of view, kimo sabe:

1) Those who voted for the war simply agreed with Bush, who flim-flammed the US into believing things which were since proved wrong. Don't blame those of us who were tricked, blame the trickster. Unless you think Bush needed those votes, in which case, why did he say the other day he didn't care what Congress said, he was building up troop levels (against the advice of everyone in sight.)

2) If you think everybody is against the war because it is going badly, you are right. You LIKE how Bush has run it? Why is a badly run war something to hold onto?

3) Regardless of what you thought then, if you still think it was a good idea to attack Iraq, you ought to get out more and find out what has been found out since. No WMD, No link to Al Queda, No yellowcake, No aluminum tubes, No mobile biological trucks. Just lies.

OK let me say helicopter. There I said it.

SirVivr
24th Jan 2007, 22:35
SAS, GIC, RJ:

I believe that this topic could be better debated at the Steak&Ale.

If they have enough alcohol, we could get into religion.

Can anyone check out the occupancy rate of the drunk tank?

Just planning ahead.

Chas A

SASless
24th Jan 2007, 23:30
Sir,
It does not take Alcohol to incur a bout of religion....flying with the G-Man will do it for you as well!
Our dear friend and colleague Nick Lappos is a dedicated Tee Totaller.....to the extent he will hide and swear his airline flight broke down rather than make an appearance at a bar (or else is merely afraid to drive in the dark).;)

To think I had a bottle of Middleton's and a back up bottle of Cardhu for him to enjoy....had to pour it down the drain instead.:ugh:

Revolutionary
25th Jan 2007, 03:10
"Perhaps the difference between our two countries is we prefer not fighting wars on our own ground and try to fight them in someone else's ground. That is both good and bad if you consider that makes such things a much more distant and less threatening situation for Joe Six Pack here in the USA"

I've heard that argument a couple of times before as justification for invading Iraq and every time I hear it, it strikes me as supremely cynical. I bet you wouldn't think that was such a great concept if you were an Iraqi civilian.

diethelm
25th Jan 2007, 16:52
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple mindedness"

Put another way, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

All countries throughout the history of man have funded the introduction of certain leaders only later to fund their downfall. The US helped put Saddam in power and funded him greatly when he was waring with Iran. The US funded the Taliban and its predecessors when they were waring with Russia where both sides undertook tactics very similar to "terorists" today. The US funded "freedom fighters" in Central America during the 80's who undertook tactics very similar to "terrorists" today. As a President of the US once said, "He may be an SOB, but he is our SOB."

The fact is that all countries, clans, religous groups and other organized bodies since the beginning of time have funded these types of activities and will do so as long as it serves their current strategic, tactical or political position at the time. All of us will simply be labled a terrorist if you are on "their" side and a freedom fighter if you are on "our" side.

As a final observation, I am quite sure that the British could make an argument that the Continental Militias were in essence terrorists and undertook terrorist activities because many units did not think standing in a field facing british artillery and firepower was such a great tactic. Naturally, the founding fathers would argue otherwise.......I think it is pretty difficult for any objective person not to accept these are simply the facts of human behaivor.

I suspect it simply depends upon which shoe you are standing in.......in either event, war is usually profitable for someone.

Dave_Jackson
25th Jan 2007, 18:35
Hey!

Who done it? Fess up.
How come two posts , each with a picture, were censored?

I didn't say anything political, religious, or sexual. A picture maybe worth a 1000 words but the second picture was only of a pussycat playing with a shoelace.

http://www.unicopter.com/NoIdea.gif

Heliport
25th Jan 2007, 18:47
I did.

No, you didn't say anything political but, as you say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.

We're pushing our luck having a political discussion of any sort in this forum.
If it's pushed too far:
either those who support PPRuNe's 'no politics in the aviation forums' rule will object
or an Admin will move the thread to Jetblast (even if the Mods here don't)
or both.

Dave_Jackson
25th Jan 2007, 19:45
Heliport,

I think that it is very unfair of you to resort to logic, reasoning and compassion.

However, you da boss. :ok:


Dave

SirVivr
25th Jan 2007, 21:38
SAS,

" had to pour it down the drain instead." I am assuming you re-cycled it before pouring it down the porcelin drain.

In the spirit of Globalism, perhaps the US can offer employment to out of work VC and bored American pilots. Think: Cobra's covering the guys in black pajamas sweeping through Fallujah. NVA Aerial Observers in the Loaches.

Then, on to Afghanistan, to meet with the people who destroyed the Bhuddist Statues.

Stopper back in the Laphroig. Must work tomorrow.

Heliport:

Hope you realize this is fantasy, not politics. The definitions blur.

Chas A

SASless
26th Jan 2007, 00:31
SirV.....of course I believe in living "Green"....no way would I casually poison the ground water with Alcohol. I certainly did filter the polluting substances from the Whisky as all environmentally aware persons would do.

B Sousa
26th Jan 2007, 01:04
"Exactly how legal is it for paid mercenaries to be flying armed helicopters or let off on rooftops to kill people? Where is the chain of command, and what is international law in that respect?"
My Nick, how times flys. Back in the days while you were in OD aircraft and some of your friends were in the White/Blue Hueys? Remember them ,and did you ask them?
Anyway not many of us have not been touched by Iraq and its mess. The pilot and friend of mine who was killed also had a brother flying a ship in the same sortie, Hes alive you can ask him.
My Opinion on the "Mercenary" title is that the American Military is so handcuffed by the politicians that they need someone who can get in and do certain things outside their rules. I am certainly not envious of the military folks over there who have to daily get their ass kicked and cannot kick back.
My rules say that if I receive one round from a House or Hotel, Mosque, the whole XXXXing block disappears. I guess thats why im not in charge.
CW4 Art Laguna was his name, and Im not gonna forget him.....

NickLappos
26th Jan 2007, 02:09
BSousa, I think you blame the wrong folks. Shakespeare said it best:

"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die
well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their
argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it
will be a black matter for the king that led them to
it;"
Henry V, Act IV

The King has a heavy reckoning, Bert. He took us there, and he blew it.

Geoffersincornwall
26th Jan 2007, 05:21
The analogy of Bush as 'KING' sits well with our ever more presidential BLIAR. He of 'who needs a bl***y parliament anyway - they just get in the way'.
Our industry has a dreadful reputation when it comes to training managers in a complex and technically challenging world but this fades to nought when we consider the management skills of a bunch of politicians. If they have ever done a real job in their entire lives that's a bonus but I'll leave it there. I like the idea of Shakespeare having the last word.
G
:ok:

B Sousa
26th Jan 2007, 09:33
"The King has a heavy reckoning, Bert. He took us there, and he blew it."

I think he had a lot of help along the way. Its becoming a mess that we all recognize from some years back..

Flying Lawyer
26th Jan 2007, 09:52
Geoffers

Extremely good article which IMHO sums up Blair perfectly: Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/25/wiraq225.xml)

NickLappos
26th Jan 2007, 12:26
B Sousa,

The Bush crap you are spouting about "You voted for it, too," gets nowhere with me. Either he is the Commander in Chief, or he is ducking responsibility. He tries to flim-flam us now with that line, but he can't have it both ways.

Bush championed this war, told us we were in national peril unless we fought it, said things about "mushroom clouds" and arrogantly defied virtually every other country on the planet. He allowed us to villify the French (who said there were no WMD) and he sent stooges Blair, Rice and Powell around to trade their good names for his cause. He wheeled in Rumsfeld, who fired 40 generals to get to the one who would fight the war his way, on the cheap. He sacrificed the careers of 250000 guardsmen by basically shanghaiing them into service against the existing enlistment laws. He took a very very fine Army and nearly broke it trying to shore up the cartoon republic he built with scotch tape and spit. He gave weapons to poorly trained rabble who turned around and used them to kill their countrymen, and then he calls them "terrorists". He strutted across that carrier deck in the uniform he refused to wear when it was his turn in combat.

This is Bush's war, and he will wear it around his neck for centuries.

mikelimapapa
26th Jan 2007, 12:35
Very well said Nick, couldn't agree more :D

AndyJB32
26th Jan 2007, 14:39
I agree absolutely Nick, with the exception of calling Blair a stooge. That implies a naivete and innocence which i feel isn't justified. Blair's role was as coldly calculated as Bush's, just that for neither of them the gamble has paid off, and thousands of people are now paying a very costly price.:sad:

soggyboxers
26th Jan 2007, 17:42
Nick,
You're showing a new side to those of us who've never met you. I must say, that I was taken in by Bush and Bliar and now the overwhelming evidence against them has changed my view of the war in Iraq. I like your Shakespearean reference - he has so often said something which is still apposite.

SASless
26th Jan 2007, 21:04
Neo Con.....I always thought that was a recently mugged Liberal.

Wikpedia suggests I was close but no cigar!

The original neoconservatives were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neoconservatives clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neoconservatives, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."


Pesky Liberals....one never knows what they might be up to.

Since communism has foundered upon the rocks of economics, corruption, ineptitude, and democracy....I guess that scores at least one victory for those vile Neo Cons.

B Sousa
26th Jan 2007, 22:27
"The Bush crap you are spouting about "You voted for it, too," gets nowhere with me."
Gee Nick, I dont recall saying that and in fact I just checked, have no clue where you got that.
My point was that HE ALONE had some help. If I recall a lot of Demos signed off on this thing also and now that all has gone to Sh1t, everyone seems to be raising their pantlegs preparing to swim.
I see things a bit different I guess. I see the war is over and now we have military folks in Iraq who might as well be unarmed and are getting their butts kicked daily. They are not Policemen.
And Im saying that since we are there, not should we go. Either get in and do a military op, win the dam thing or pack your bags and come home........
The U.S. can no longer fight, they are restricted by too many CNN types who think war is violent.Wake the XXXX up, it is extremely violent and if you dont kick ass ,destroy some things and kill a lot of these people your not going to win...
I give a rats ass whether you like Bush or not. Im just tired of this pussyfooting around.
Somewhere in this mess Im sure we agree,on something.
"He strutted across that carrier deck in the uniform he refused to wear when it was his turn in combat." A bit harsh, that one. Did he refuse or did he have a choice? I think you will find that he had a choice that was acceptable and legal to thousands who also did the same thing.

SASless
27th Jan 2007, 01:02
Bert Baby.....

Are you the "Tin Man"?



(Fellers....we have a celebrity amongst us!)

B Sousa
27th Jan 2007, 02:02
"Are you the "Tin Man"?"
Sasless, you mean by Dale Brown?? Yes I know Dale, Do I sound that gruff?? Im actually very nice.
That was my Alma Mater for 27 years.

Why, you want me to get him to sign a copy for you and bring it to HAI??

NickLappos
27th Jan 2007, 03:00
Bert,
Here is Dwight Eisenhower's proposed speech had D Day failed:

"Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

Sound like Bush?

blave
27th Jan 2007, 03:06
Ah, er, boys... This is going down a serious rat hole that could alienate folks that have been comrade-ly up to this point.

I have an extremely low opinion of our "president" and no respect at all for same, but I worry that these political "conversations" will get real ugly real fast. Can we get back to talking about something helicopter-related?

Like Robinson rotor design, for instance:8 .


Dave Blevins

SASless
27th Jan 2007, 03:43
Heck fire Bert....bring him along in person.

I do enjoy his books....who knows....might be some yarns thrown about that might give him ideas for a new book....after all he does write fiction. Nick would probably trip over his shoe laces cozying up to a fellow writer.;)

B Sousa
27th Jan 2007, 16:23
SAS
I will give him a call. He is usually desk bound for another book.
(P.S.) called the wife and left a message about HAI. Hes out with a friend in the Cheyenne. He only has a P210 (sweet)
"Sound like Bush?"
Nick Were not going anywhere with this one. I certainly havent seen the white flag yet and until I do . Its go forward.
(White Flag is traditional Demos flag of Victory)

JimEli
27th Jan 2007, 17:20
Bert,
Here is Dwight Eisenhower's proposed speech had D Day failed:

"Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

Sound like Bush?

Shouldn’t you be quoting Roosevelt?

SASless
27th Jan 2007, 20:45
At the late evening briefing on Sunday, June 4, Group Captain Stagg [staff meteorologist] told Eisenhower that there would be a window of clearer weather opening up over Normandy late on June 5. While overall the weather would remain poor, visibility would increase and the winds die to a point that made the invasion possible.
Admiral Ramsey pointed out that if the invasion was to proceed on June 6, he needed to give his ships movement orders in the next thirty minutes. Ike polled his commanders, who were hesitant, but determined that the invasion should proceed. Montgomery was perhaps the most effusive in support of going, but the final decision was Eisenhower's.
The staff officers left the room, leaving the commanders behind. Eisenhower was quiet, mulling over the most critical decision he'd ever had to make. If the weather turned against them and derailed the invasion, it was quite possible that the Allies could lose the war in the west. At the very least, the fight would drag on for a few years more.
The room was silent. Bedell Smith, Ike's chief of staff, later recalled that the only sounds were the wind and the rain pounding Southwick House while his boss wrestled with the momentous decision.
"I am quite positive we must give the order," Ike said. "I don't like it, but there it is… I don't' see how we can do anything else."
With that, the invasion was on -- contingent on a final weather brief the next morning. Eisenhower's subordinates rushed from the room to set things in motion.
Just hours later the officers reconvened; it was still possible to postpone the invasion if the weather forecast had changed. Stagg reaffirmed his prediction: there would be a window of acceptable weather. Eisenhower sat in silence for a few moments on a sofa.
"Well, Stagg," he said, smiling, "If this forecast comes off, I promise you we'll have a celebration when the time comes."
Then, after a brief discussion, Ike said, "OK, we'll go."
###
Sometime during that day, Eisenhower, left alone with his concerns as the vast machine he'd put in motion rolled toward France, pulled out paper and pencil to compose a note he hoped never to use. It was a message to be read in the event the invasion failed.
Ike wrote, "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and the troops have been withdrawn."
The original draft of the note, saved by Eisenhower's naval aide, shows that Ike crossed out this use of the passive voice, substituting instead a bold claim to personal responsibility. The sentence now ended with, "I have withdrawn the troops."
Eisenhower continued in this way, the commander taking personal responsibility for the actions -- and the failure -- of the nearly two million people involved in the vast operation.
"My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to this attempt it is mine alone."
Eisenhower's reputation and place in history were guaranteed by what happened over the following year on the large stage that was the war in Europe, and in his two terms as President. But this note, with his shouldering of specific, personal accountability, may have been his finest moment as a leader.
It was written "before" the invasion began long before he knew how it would turn out. Thank goodness it was never used.


As broadcast to the World .......perhaps some folks were posting at Move On or something when Bush's televised speech was broadcast the other night

.

"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me," he said. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

tottigol
27th Jan 2007, 21:31
Gentlemen, when I read the name of the pilot killed I thought of his brother whom I know. A quick phone call confirmed that he was on the same sortie, we can only begin to understand what his feelings may have been when he called home to give the news.
i believe some of the folks involved with Blackwater are not doing this just for the money, but also for their ideals.
So far I agree wholeheartedly with most of the posters on a thread that ought to be continued over several pints and in private (even though I would not want to associate good beer with certain feelings), and I had to push my jaw back in the closed position after one of you guys surprised me with his statements.
As far as terrorism is concerned, I am afraid we are yet to see the worst in Europe and elsewhere.

B Sousa
27th Jan 2007, 21:31
Quote:
"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me," he said. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

That sounds like Bush. Please dont tell Nick, he wont buy Beer at HAI.

Flying Lawyer
27th Jan 2007, 22:43
As far as terrorism is concerned, I am afraid we are yet to see the worst in Europe and elsewhere.

You may well be right.

That's just one of many reasons why large numbers of us were opposed to Blair (for his personal motives) dragging Britain into the war on Iraq.

victor two
27th Jan 2007, 22:55
It's weird, but I just can't imagine the Islamic Insurgents who are aparently causing all the violence and bloodshed in Iraq all coming home and blogging away at their PC's over the philosophy of war, foreign policy and the rights and wrongs of the politics that led them to that place in their lives whenever they lose a bunch of their freedom fighters to an allied airstrike or an ambush.

I guess that's just another one of the differences between them and us in the west.

hotzenplotz
28th Jan 2007, 04:19
Letter From Downed Pilot's Brother

Dan Laguna, Brother of Art Laguna Tells Story of Blackwater Crash

01/25/2007 2:18 PM ET

"First of all my brother is and was a HERO. All he ever wanted to do from the time I can remember as a child, was he wanted to fly. He became one of the most professional pilots you could have ever known. I recruited my brother to join us with Blackwater Aviation. We get a lot of resumes but only a few have the qualifications to join us. This is one of the most demanding jobs in Iraq. The military flies some every day but we in Blackwater Aviation are up flying in the RED zone every day all day.

To get to your question of what happened, I got a call that we had some of our Blackwater PSD teams in contact and needed help. We are the QRF (Quick Reaction Force) for just about everyone. The military takes too long to respond because of the approval they have to get all the way up the chain of command. I am the only one that makes the decision to go or not and we always go when someone is in harm's way. I sent out two helicopters to help our team in contact. After they were on station for a very short time they began to receive automatic fire. One of my door gunners was shot immediately in the head. Both helicopters flew back to the Green zone to get him to the hospital.

I was monitoring the radio and knew we had at lest one wounded. I got my crew together and and my brother's crew then went back out to help our PSD team. When we arrived at their location which only took about three minutes, we started to receive heavy volumes of automatic fire from all around..

My brother was my wing man at that point and as we took evasive maneuvers I heard him they were taking rounds. By the time I got turned around to see him he was gone.

As I continued to look for his helicopter we were also shot down. I was able to land the helicopter in a small courtyard. I shut down the helicopter to assess the damage and to make sure my crew was ok. My crew was fine and the helicopter was shot up pretty bad but was able to fly the three to five minutes back to the Green zone.

I needed to get my crew out of that area because it would have been only a few minutes before the insurgents would have gotten to us. After I got back to our area I had the mechanics put on three more rotor blades and went back out to find my brother and his crew. It only took them about ten to fifteen minutes to get me airborne again. I was back up looking for my brother and was able to get the military to help with search.

It took about twenty minutes to locate the helicopter. It had been shot down in a small ally which made it very difficult to locate. By the time we found the helicopter two of the bodies were dragged out and into the street. The Army and our PSD team got there just in time before they could do anything with them.

I landed at that location so I could make sure they were my guys. When I unzipped the second body bag that the Army had already put them in, I found my brother.

I was told by the ground guys that they would get them all back to the Green zone. I walked back to my running helicopter, jumped in and flew back to the Green Zone. I then realized I had to make a very difficult call to my brother's wife. I did everything I could to let her know he did not suffer and how very sorry that I was. Later that night I was asked to go to the hospital to ID my guys. Latter at the hospital the US Ambassador showed up to talk with me.

I am only telling you this story because I don't believe the media really tells the public about these heroes and I wonder if civilians really believe in what we are doing over here. I know we are doing the right thing in helping the Iraqi people and wish everyone could understand that.

May God bless the men and woman here and their families.

— Dan Laguna,

Blackwater Aviation Program Manager,

Baghdad, Iraq
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1001/Letter_From_Downed_Pilots_Brother

Flying Lawyer
28th Jan 2007, 06:07
the Islamic Insurgents
Are they the people opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

blave
29th Jan 2007, 06:39
The real heroes here would appear to be the Iraqi civilians trying to live a normal life, but for whom each day is a question of survival.

I am no blind American patriot (ref: my post above), but I have a hard time considering a populace that strings dead aviators from a bridge and crowing about it as "real heroes".

Dave Blevins

Flying Lawyer
29th Jan 2007, 08:17
flungdung referred to "Iraqi civilians trying to live a normal life, but for whom each day is a question of survival."

Your reference to the 'populace' is unfair to ordinary Iraqis who, like us, just want to get on living their normal lives. They are caught up in a battle not of their making. Those struggling to survive day by day are the lucky ones; the unlucky ones have already been killed.

Thud_and_Blunder
29th Jan 2007, 08:18
I have a hard time considering a populace that strings dead aviators from a bridge and crowing about it as "real heroes".
I sympathise. Similarly, I had a hard time considering a populace that dragged living soldiers from a car, beat them to a pulp then shot them dead in front of the cameras back in the 1980s to be "real heroes". However, that same populace (or faction, as I'm sure they'd be better described) have now reached the stage where they appear to accept the rule of law. Difficult to take the long view sometimes, isn't it?

Flying Lawyer
29th Jan 2007, 08:30
(or faction, as I'm sure they'd be better described)

Exactly the point I was making. :ok:

rjsquirrel
29th Jan 2007, 09:47
It is very very hard to wake up and realize that your country is considered by some to be the Bad Guys. Doubly so if you have the Milk of Human kindness flowing in your veins, injected there by the supreme ignorance of counties and cultures borne by the Bush administration, where Al Queda, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the War on Terror created this mindless confusion of cause and effect that stirred a million rednecks to fly 6 foot flags from their Chevy Trucks as we proudly sailed into a country that had nothing to do with it. I am reminded of the scene from "Robo Cop" where the super-robot draws its weapon and tells the executive to "drop his weapon or he will be killed" and the poor sod screams "What weapon?" as he is mowed down in the board room.

Would I string up a dead Iraqi on a bridge if Iraqis had killed my mother and brother by "mistake" or with an armed helicopter flown by a guy who got paid 250,000 dollars for it, and who made YouTube videos of the thrills he got?

Is it a real stretch to think that some Iraqis hate us because we attacked their country, tore down every system that fed, housed, powered and treated them medically? Did each one of the 100,000 to 600,000 of the Iraqis who died (number uncertain because we didn't bother to count them) create 10 each who hate us?

And now we hear the same drum beat about Iran, the same words and the same broad-brush view of geopolitics. I feel a cold draft at my feet.

I used to shudder to think we had given the Red Launch Button to that ignorant idiot, but in horror, I now realize - He is us.

maxter
29th Jan 2007, 10:16
I am no blind American patriot (ref: my post above), but I have a hard time considering a populace that strings dead aviators from a bridge and crowing about it as "real heroes".
Dave Blevins


The people who did this are dipicable humans but I would venture to give the benifit of the doubt to the vast majority of people in that devastated country, that they are good people just trying to survive. Put them in a society that has known peace and democracy that we have been privelaged with and you just may be surprised. I find it very sad that so called civilised people are willing to condem a whole nation for the few really bad apples.

Some of them, misguided maybe, genuinely believe they are trying to defend their country no doubt. I can assure you if some northern neighbour tried to invade us they may control the country through numbers but would still suffer the same fate as our troops suffer in Iraq from those willing to continue the fight behind the lines.

To condem Iragis for some of these acts is like condeming all Americans for the actions of a few for 'Columbine' or Tim McVey or any number of the dregs that inhabit any nation. I'm sure I do not have to worry about my daughter visiting Canada, being fed to pigs as per the case there at the momment.

If a little more respect was given to the inhabitants of Iraq, from our side before and after the invasion and destruction, I would be confident in saying we would not be in the mess we are at the momment. This comment is not aimed at the troops on the ground but more at the leadership who set the culture and standards of behaviour.

SASless
29th Jan 2007, 14:28
The Iraqi people sure are losing in this war. Why did you not see videos of 12,000,000 purple fingers proudly held up to the cameras....the bloody cheek of them to do so. Why, everyone knows that was a sham....and in furtherance of the sham they danced in the streets. To make it worse....they voted three times just to fool us into believing freedom and being able to select their own leaders was something they wanted.

Just like in Afghanistan, who do the women think they are fooling with this going to school, working outside the home, and the like. Kid's flying kites just to fool the rest of the world how much they hate living without the Taliban.

Well...time for a cup of coffee, I smell it brewing in the kitchen. Perhaps some of ya'll might try that too.

NickLappos
29th Jan 2007, 14:52
SASless,
Surely we all feel that the votes were historic and important, and won with the blood of US soldiers. The problem is they seem to be proving to be impotent, with the failure of the civil system to achieve stability. This failure could also be part of the US intervention, cast when Rumsfeld disbanded all civil and military authority and replaced it with nothing, for years.

The symbolic gesture of that purple finger raised tears in my eyes, and hope as well. But the other image I have in my mind is the sensless looting of all national buildings, including the museums, while US soldiers (under orders to do so) stood by. We were witnesses to the chaos we caused, and then celebrated.

Any study of WWII shows the stunning statescraft of MacArthur, who held the Emperor in place in Japan, so he could give orders supporting the US occupation, and thus legitimize it. Patton employed former Nazis to run the show while Germany was settling down. How does this compare with the firing of the Baath Party members (the only political game in town) and the complete disbanding of the Army (which freed millions of trained young men to form the insurgency).

The failure to actually build the nation, fueled by the ignorance of the civilians who took over for the US Military in Iraq, is stunning, and as usual, the soldiers are now paying the price.

As an example of how to do it right, here is the order Hirohito gave (as dictated to him by MacArthur):

"Hirohito, By the Grace of Heaven, Emperor of Japan, seated on the Throne occupied by the same Dynasty changeless through ages eternal, To all whom these presents shall come, Greeting:
We do hereby authorize Lieutenant-General Torashiro Kawabe, Zyusii, Second Class of the Imperial Order of the Sacred Treasure, to make, on behalf of Ourselves, any arrangements directed by the Supreme Commander for Allied Powers, as stated in the second clause of the message of the Government of the United States of America which was conveyed to our Government through the Government of Switzerland on August sixteenth of this year. Given at Our Palace in Tokyo, this eighteenth day of the eight month of the twentieth year of Syowa, being the two thjousand six hundred and fifth year from the Accession of the Emperor Zinmu."

B Sousa
29th Jan 2007, 15:56
Beyond Hirohito the wonderful, Ghengis Kahn, Eisenhowers Surrender etc etc. and back to Iraq.
There is plenty of blame to go around in regards to this mess. Some of what I thought was happening appears to be coming out. Failure of us to be downright mean and nasty.
Heres a couple quotes from a friend who knows a bit first hand.
" Helps explain some of the "foreign fighters" now fighting in Iraq.
Out of the 2500 interrogations our team conducted, approx. 50-100 (probably a low estimate) of them were of Iranians or ex-Iraqi's who had been captured in the 1980-1988 war, then sent to camps and brain washed for several years and then sent back to Iraq to spy. There was more than 20,000 of these guys who spent years in camps being re- indoctrinated. When the war started, Iran sent these guys back to Iraq, and are sending them by the droves now, to stir up trouble and apply the special skills they learned to kill American soldiers. We tried, mostly in vain, to convince the upper crust this was happening but seemed nobody wanted to believe it or deal with it, because in doing so, we would piss the Shia off and nobody wanted to do that.
I believe that had we dealt with it sooner, and very sternly, we would not be in the mess we are seeing now from Irans' involvement. At least we could have been taking steps to counter their effort and realize what they were up too. Their plan as I was told, was to tie down as many American troops as possible for as long as possible, to give the old boys in Iran time to melt a little Uranium and plan for the mushroom cloud. Now Bush says to kill or capture them, well I have always supported "
"The brazen assault, 50 miles south of Baghdad on Jan. 20, was conducted by nine to 12 militants posing as an American security team. They traveled in black GMC Suburban vehicles — the type used by U.S. government convoys — had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues, and spoke English.
In a written statement, the U.S. command reported at the time that five soldiers were killed while "repelling the attack." Now, two senior U.S. military officials as well as Iraqi officials say four of the five were captured and taken from the governor's compound alive. Three of them were found dead and one mortally wounded later that evening in locations as far as 25 miles east of the governor's office.
The U.S. officials said they could not be sure where the soldiers were shot after being captured at the compound. Iraqi officials said they believe the men were killed just before the Suburbans were abandoned.
The commando team also took an unclassified U.S. computer with them as its members fled with the four soldiers and left behind an American M-4 automatic rifle, senior U.S. military officials said."
" Just heard from xxxxxxxxx that one reason that convoy of bad guys got through the guardpost to abduct the Americans was that the English-speaking driver(?) was a blonde-haired guy. xxxxxxxx thinks this sounds like the Chechnyans. I've heard of them operating in Afghan but not Iraq.
"
Latest is that it was probably Iranian Spec OPs working directly under the Top Iranian Cleric. It appears a General and a Colonel were captured with Al Sadr or his boys and released to Iran by the Iraqis. Squeezeing these guys would have some serious credence to irans involvement. This is only rumor on this one, But I know the source.
Point of this is we are getting beat at our own game. Snuffy Sp4 out there has a limited mission and severly limited information. It appears so far he has not been put on notice that someone possibly trained in the U.S. and looks like him may be out there to kill or capture him.
Heres another note about something that always plagues the rear echelon troops.
"The slimy bastard I was referring to in our earlier email would be Iran in this case...You are absolutely right, rear echolon troops have gotten sloppy and lazy. I was in a chow hall one day and when i got through eating, i walked out and was immeadiately shot at by several insurgents who had gotten past the guards and some how got to within a 100 meters or so of us. I ran back in and over the roar inside of all the troops talking, screamed that there was ragheads shooting and coming towards the chow hall. Most of the troops inside were truck drivers and non infantry types, as they ran out of the chow hall the insurgents cut loose on them and as i stood there to see what happen, I actually saw 90% of all troops there run away from the fight, and most were retreating as fast as they could get away. Even the chief warrant officer i was eating with ask why i was not running to get away, i told him to give me his weapon so i could fight back, believe it or not, he said he didn't bring any ammo with him, and he ran and jumped in the humvee and he and his driver hauled ass and left me there..AS God would have it, a group of Marines just happen to be driving into the parking lot saw what was happening, and engaged the bad guys and killed all seven of them with the army not firing a shot. "
So Blame Bush all you want, but now all the generals who have added stars ought to get off their asses and shape up some of these folks, reminding them that if they want to get lazy they will die.
I get off on tangents so often I dont know if this is an eye opener. Its not more than I expected..
Sasless keep Nick on your good side I can use a free Beer.

NickLappos
29th Jan 2007, 16:01
BSousa,
You missed the entire point of your long long post. Those vehicles were ones we gave to the "good guys" and I will bet the killers were the "good guys" we are helping. We trained and equipped the "terrorists" because they are all pretty much against us.

You can invent mythical chechnians, but those vehicles (like all the others reported when Iraquis are kidnapped and killed) and the weapons, explosives and uniforms your boy Bush gave to them.

Unless you still think CNN did it.....

blave
29th Jan 2007, 17:27
All good points Maxter - food for thought. (Although I confess to not understanding the thing about Canada and pigs... Guess I missed something in the news.)

Dave Blevins


The people who did this are dipicable humans but I would venture to give the benifit of the doubt to the vast majority of people in that devastated country, that they are good people just trying to survive. Put them in a society that has known peace and democracy that we have been privelaged with and you just may be surprised. I find it very sad that so called civilised people are willing to condem a whole nation for the few really bad apples.
Some of them, misguided maybe, genuinely believe they are trying to defend their country no doubt. I can assure you if some northern neighbour tried to invade us they may control the country through numbers but would still suffer the same fate as our troops suffer in Iraq from those willing to continue the fight behind the lines.
To condem Iragis for some of these acts is like condeming all Americans for the actions of a few for 'Columbine' or Tim McVey or any number of the dregs that inhabit any nation. I'm sure I do not have to worry about my daughter visiting Canada, being fed to pigs as per the case there at the momment.
If a little more respect was given to the inhabitants of Iraq, from our side before and after the invasion and destruction, I would be confident in saying we would not be in the mess we are at the momment. This comment is not aimed at the troops on the ground but more at the leadership who set the culture and standards of behaviour.

B Sousa
29th Jan 2007, 18:16
"Those vehicles were ones we gave to the "good guys" and I will bet the killers were the "good guys" we are helping"

OK Nick , We are getting closer together on this one. I think your right in that we dont really know WHO is on our side there and the Good/Bad Guys are hard to ID. As to having first hand knowledge on the equipment, I dont have it.
Im am more able not to blame "The Bushter" alone but all the Politicians who have made this mess just that. In a military action I want our generals to earn those stars by getting in the trenches vs. a sat phone from the McDill O Club..
I hear too many folks saying "well yes while I was on the ground." BS from what I have seen while they were on the ground you couldnt get close enouth to them to get a picture.
Either way, if you think Nancy Pelosi and her crew is going to do better doing anything other than packing things up and backstepping, I think your mistaken.
Right now I dont even know if thats the wrong thing to do. Unless we get serious over there, she may be right.

Dave_Jackson
29th Jan 2007, 18:51
http://www.beerforayear.co.za/images/brands/MGD_24-12oz_bottles.jpg

Edited so that B Sousa doesn't have to worry about his eyesight. :O

B Sousa
29th Jan 2007, 23:17
Dam Dave, its obviously too much for me, I see a case of beer.

SASless
30th Jan 2007, 00:49
Nick,

Not to confuse the issue but it was not Rumsfeld who made that decision but rather a former State Department guy by name of Paul Breamer. Breamer replaced Garner with a brief to take strict control of the occupation.

Without consulting the military, and in consultation with Wolfowitz, he made the decision to dissolve the Iraqi military afterthe military government under Garner had promised to pay the Iraqi military and as feasible, use them to flesh out units to assist the US Military.

Not only did he order the termination of serving military but also terminated pensions for retired personnel.

President Bush, before the war started, approved the retention of Iraqi's in the military, police, and government. Garner arrived after the combat action was complete and ran the interim government until replaced by Breamer.

The intelligence prior to the war suggested entire units of the Iraqi Army would either change sides or remain in their barracks. That did not happen. It would appear the Iraqi military were more loyal to the country than to Saddam. When the Iraqi military dispersed to avoid being destroyed by the coalition forces, they took weapons, equipment and ammunition home with them.

Had those same folks have been called back to form units under temporary US Control with a clear understanding that upon weeding out the Baathist senior leadership and Saddam's supporters, US forces would leave, then maybe we could have avoided what is going on now.

The Sixty Four Dollar question is just how did that decision come about and who approved it? Ultimately it lands on the desk of George Bush but it had to be approved on the way up or it would have not happened.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63423-2003Nov19?language=printer

NickLappos
30th Jan 2007, 07:37
Well Bert and Sasless, looks like we are getting closer. A beer call is in order.

Let me separate us again!

I believe the facts are:
1) There are few terrorists (in the Al Queda kind) in Iraq, we are stuck in the middle of a civil war for ultimate power between religious/tribal factions.
2) The war on terror is going on elsewhere, we are too busy cleaning up Bush's mess to actually fight it. Afghanistan and the Taliban are front and center, but not in Bush's eyes.
3) We will not "win" in Iraq, there is no such thing. It is like putting a frog in a blender, and then putting it back together again, hoping it will hop. The best we can do is walk away from the mess, watch it sort itself out, and hope that they don't hate us forever.
4) Iran needs attention, but not the Bush/Rice kind. If we send military in, we will get even more stuck, and it will not be any prettier. Diplomacy will work, if we knew any diplomats.

B Sousa
31st Jan 2007, 04:46
1) OK
2) OK
3) OK
4) OK

But Im afraid Dancing Nancy and the Hlliary team will do nothing more than open the floodgates here in the states. Quite frankly see nobody in the future with Cojones.

Personally and I think I have said it before, I dont see why we even have even one troop off the Contiguos shoreline.
We can fly a UAV in Afghannieland from Nellis AFB, we should certainly be able to take out bad guy(s) from Ft Bragg.

I do almost anything for a free Beer or a Sikorsky Pin..

NickLappos
31st Jan 2007, 08:52
Bert,
Ya earned both! I might even buy one for that almost-useless sasless guy.

zpringer
31st Jan 2007, 09:12
I seem to be missing something here. Is Blackwater a mercenary outfit?
If it is, does that mean the U.S is sanctioning mercenaries?

SASless
31st Jan 2007, 12:26
Bodyguards perhaps but Mercenary does not accurately describe their status.

They are doing "protective" work and not engaging in combat as "soldiers".

The line between mercenaries and not, is a bit blurred in this case.

One could suggest an all voluteer military constitutes a mercenary force vice a citizen army that is manned by conscripts in addition to volunteers.

TheMonk
31st Jan 2007, 12:31
zpringer,

The US of A has been sanctioning the use of mercenaries for a VER VERY long time. Remember the Ravens? I bet Nick L knows what I'm talking about. :ugh:

Da Monk

NickLappos
31st Jan 2007, 13:02
Sasless said, " They are doing "protective" work and not engaging in combat as "soldiers"."

I don't believe that for a single microsecond, SAS!

Unless those Blackwater yahoos with scope rifles on the rooftops that are laughing and shooting are plugging parking violations into their victims....

JimEli
31st Jan 2007, 15:00
and your point?

During our war of independance, the British purchased the services of 30,000 German Soldiers for $150,000, called "Hessians". The total sent was 30,067 from 1776 to 1782.

diethelm
31st Jan 2007, 15:43
If they need a zero time F model, I will sell them mine..........

chopperdr
31st Jan 2007, 16:33
call them, thats what they are looking for
dr

SASless
31st Jan 2007, 17:07
It would appear to me that as long as the Private Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfoming defensive tasks protecting persons, assets, the like, and are subject to US Military law as they are now.....they in no way fit the legal definitions of a "Mercenary". Thus, to call them that, is incorrect.

If the boys were laying on a roof top and offing insurgents who posed a threat to them or what/who they were assigned to protect then they were well within the guide lines.

You may not like that situation but that has nothing to do with the law.

A true Mercenary owes his loyalty to his pay check and is for sale to the highest bidder regardless of idealolgy.

You want to suggest to some of the Blackwater guys they could make more money working for the insurgents? I would pay a lot of money to see that ass whupping!

mikelimapapa
31st Jan 2007, 17:49
I think by now everybody has seen the videos on youtube that Nick mentioned of the blackwater guys sitting on rooftops picking people off with 50 cal rifles, laughing and having a goodtime like they are playing a video game. My question is, how can they kill people, if nobody is shooting at them? Aren't there rules of engagement?

Dave_Jackson
31st Jan 2007, 18:48
Who closed the [ The PPRuNing of Mankind: (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=234757&highlight=Agnostic) ] thread? :{

There is no way to add a http://www.unicopter.com/Check.gif to Somalia.

In addition, another http://www.unicopter.com/Check.gif may be required. The Neo-Con propaganda about Iran sounds the same as the propaganda about Iraq before its invasion.

SASless
31st Jan 2007, 23:12
Which video is that where the shooters with the .50 cal rifles are Blackwater staff?
Granted the .50 cal is very effective in that role....similar effect to potting Praire Dogs with a .30-338. They grow to be nine feet long when hit about navel high. (the Praire Dogs that is....)

Read up on the capability of a Barratt .50 caliber rifle using Raufoss rounds....pretty scary stuff if you are on the receiving end of it. A Canadian sniper scored a hit on a Taliban rifleman at a range over 2000 meters.

NickLappos
1st Feb 2007, 00:55
Actually, it is a scope equipped 7.62mm, but the targets are real enough, and the banter as the shots are made is chilling. Mercenaries, for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZDcTDetTS4

and "Iraq for Sale":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJUEULWEP9c

Main Entry: 1mer·ce·nary
Pronunciation: 'm&r-s&-"ner-E, -ne-rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages -- more at MERCY (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/mercy)
: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

SASless
1st Feb 2007, 03:15
Nick,


Perhaps you could also cite the various laws that govern the use of non-military persons in combat and show how the various Geneva Conventions, US Federal Law, and DOD regulations pertain to contractors and their employees. A dictionary definition is fine but does not have weight of law. You will find the recent decision to require the contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was intended to both facilitate their use and also to provide a means whereby violations of the UCMJ and Iraqi Law can be prosecuted.

As an old Cobra Jock....I am sure you understand the concept of a target rich environment and the reaction that provokes in a gunship pilot. I would suggest those guys with the .308 or .338 magnum rifles are no different.

As someone once said...."if you find yourself in a fair fight....you planned it all wrong!" (or words to that effect. )

Dave_Jackson
5th Feb 2007, 18:04
Blackwater; plus

Iraq for Sale (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155)

B Sousa
5th Feb 2007, 23:45
Dave
Whats the point? Anywhere the U.S. troops go they use private contractors for Something. And yes private contractors make as much profit as they can. Even in the U.S. when the Air Force go on maunuvers, shall we say the Ramada Inn is a private Contractor....
Unlike some of the fine places I stayed in the Marines or the Army.

Dave_Jackson
6th Feb 2007, 00:35
My argument is that a few people, called Neo-Cons, are becoming excessively wealthy, satisfying their 'Need for Greed'.

This wealth has come by taking $800.00 from every American, man, woman, and child. What did Mr. and Mrs. America get for their money? Nothing!

SASless
6th Feb 2007, 02:51
Dave,

Civilians form a very large part of our military force structure. Many reasons cause that to be so. The size of the military is limited to numbers of troops, equipment and the like. In order to have a flexibility to scale up or down, civilian contractors allow for that and are actually very cheap as compared to maintaining large numbers of troops all who require pay, housing, medical/dental care, pensions and the like.

Our military has wisely accepted the proposition that general trades manning can very easily be taken care of by hiring contractors when operational committments require and thus are able to field more combat arms troops and equipment.

Halliburton, the favored spear catcher for critics of those on the left....is just one of many corporations that vie for those contracts. They in turn hire folks on contract rather than as permanent employees. That way they in turn minimize the cost of supplying workers and equipment.

Is there a rip off of the taxpayer in this system? Probably....but what government operation is not a rip off? How many trillion dollars has been spent on welfare and anti-poverty programs in the United States with no visible change in the numbers of poor folk?

I notice of late, that some folks of a particular political view are grandly ignoring the Billion or so dollars worth of fraud, waste, and mis-management in FEMA's Katrina operations. That outcry only comes when someone thinks another party is getting rich at their expense. That shoe changes from foot to foot as you well know.

Dave_Jackson
6th Feb 2007, 03:53
SASless,

You appear to be under the illusion that the Neo-Con CEOs are there to serve Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Americans are there to serve the Neo-Cons. The large companies are only vehicles for transfering wealth to the CEOs.

If the Neo-Con CEOs are interested in Americans, why are they sending more and more work off-shore?

If the Neo-Con CEOs are interested in Americans, why are they allowing millions of low-cost South American workers into the States?

If the Neo-Con CEOs are interested in Americans, why are they producing more terrorists then they eliminate?

Thing big. The Neo-Con CEOs have little interest in America. They are thinking globally.

We had this discussion a few years ago. As before, it's not weapons of mass destruction. It's not bad rulers. It's not oil. It's global economic domination.

If you think that this is done for Mr. and Mrs. America, then ask yourself why many Neo-Cons hold dual citizenship, such as American and Israeli, and why many more hold offshore bank accounts and foreign residencies.

Your stock portfolio might be going up in value, however this value is in American dollars and the American dollar is going down in comparison to other global currencies ~ thanks to the Neo-Cons.


Dave

slowrotor
6th Feb 2007, 15:22
The fastest and most advanced helicopters and VTOL's are sold to the military.

It seems to me that helicopter sales would increase in wars.

And any development to increase the performance of helos would used by the military. Sikorsky's first helo was sold to the Army, without a war now and then, there would be little need for advanced helicopters.

SASless
6th Feb 2007, 17:45
Can you name some of these evil "Neo-con's" that seem to have it in mind to steal your gold crowns?:confused:

Dave_Jackson
6th Feb 2007, 18:24
Can you name some of these evil "Neo-con's" that seem to have it in mind to steal your gold crowns?Sure.

Look at the signatories at the bottom of this page; Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)


_______________________

Want more? See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

NickLappos
6th Feb 2007, 18:45
Dave,

Ya done good. I am proud, and owe you a beer on meeting night.

Can we try to make the Neo-Cons into New Convicts as soon as possible?

B Sousa
6th Feb 2007, 19:29
"My argument is that a few people, called Neo-Cons, are becoming excessively wealthy, satisfying their 'Need for Greed'. "
Dave,
Thats good, but it applies to just about every business in the U.S. Last time I checked the gap between the Rich and the rest of us is getting wider. I guess we can say God Bless America, but I think its going to be an issue down the road. Maybe if a few of those "Golden Parachutes" didnt open, some would get a wake up call.

And Yes, I also accept free Beer........for any reason.

Dave_Jackson
6th Feb 2007, 19:59
Nick,a beer on meeting night
OK, but two requests;

SASless comes along to buy the beer (or tea), and provide lively conversation.

Plus, we get the same waitress and Xray glasses that we had a few years ago.

Picture of waitress
http://www.unicopter.com/Temporary/X-mas_drink.SHS

Dave

NickLappos
6th Feb 2007, 20:11
Dave,
I thank the Lord that magnifier works only on the girl!

SASless
6th Feb 2007, 23:33
... many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism.:ugh:

From Wikpedia as you suggested Dave....."NeoCons" appear to be "failed" Liberals.:=

I fail to see how you could call Dick Cheney a "neo"....he has always been a conservative.

Two's in
7th Feb 2007, 02:55
Dick is not so much a conservative, as he is a would-be Alzheimer's case. He simply has no recollection of his 5 years at Haliburton as CEO, or the $44m it earned him, and what a senseless tragedy that is. Nothing wrong with any of that by the way, after all, getting rich and being successful are enshrined in the constitution, it's just that whole Organizational Conflict of Interest thing that Uncle Sam is so keen on that bothers me.

When Dick turns up at the Haliburton Old Boys meeting and announces, "Great news guys, we've negotiated a truce with the Iraqi Militia's, the Iranians and Syrians have offered to provide peace keeping troops, and we begin withdrawing US troops tomorrow" do you think he will be treated like the new Saviour, or as a complete pariah who has blown Haliburton's profit margin for the next 10 years?

It doesn't matter whether it is Haliburton, Blackwater, or any one of the Defense companies making an honest buck delivering misery in the name of democracy. What matters is that individuals who stand to make personal gain from the activities of these companies are serving in this administration. If that is not an Organizational Conflict of Interest, then Scooter Libby is my next character reference.

rudestuff
7th Feb 2007, 11:41
"Enjoy your cool-aid, Loser"

Its nice to see that we're getting some grown-up arguments on here!
Seriously though, I'm personally disinclined to take seriously any post that starts out that way, however well informed the rest of it may be.







Agreed. Post removed.
Interesting way of introducing himself to the forum. :rolleyes:
Heliport

SASless
7th Feb 2007, 12:30
44 million....gee that is a lot of money....until one compares it to the just the severance package for the head of Exxon who got over 400 million just in severance pay.

He pulled down over a Billion dollars in his career with Exxon.

Conflict of Interest....not quite. If Cheney used his position as Veep to steer contracts to Halliburton I would agree but that did not happen.

Brown and Root, along with many other such outfits have been doing business with the DOD since the 1960's for sure....and clear back to WWII days. Recall civilian construction workers were at Wake Island at the outset of WWII and assisted in the defense of the island only to be taken POW with many of them being murdered by the Japanese at the very end of the war.

While we are talking about the topic....let's discuss William Jefferson, D-LA, who takes cash bribes, Duke Cunningham ex-R-CA who is serving prison time for extorting bribe money, and a host of other folks in Washington that have their hands out.

diethelm
7th Feb 2007, 14:30
Meanwhile, back in Washington DC, they are trying to figure out if Blackwater has a contract. It turns out Blackwater is a dining facilities contractor......



WASHINGTON - After numerous denials, the Pentagon has confirmed that a North Carolina company provided armed security guards in Iraq under a subcontract that was buried so deeply the government couldn't find it.

The secretary of the Army on Tuesday wrote two Democratic lawmakers that the Blackwater USA contract was part of a huge military support operation by run by Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Vice President Dick Cheney ran Halliburton before he became vice president.

Several times last year, Pentagon officials told inquiring lawmakers they could find no evidence of the Blackwater contract. Blackwater, of Moyock, N.C., did not respond to several requests for comment.

The discovery shows the dense world of Iraq contracting, where the main contractor hires subcontractors who then hire additional subcontractors. Each company tacks on a charge for overhead, a cost that works its way up to U.S. taxpayers.

"This ongoing episode demonstrates the Pentagon's complete failure to safeguard taxpayer dollars," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., one of the lawmakers who had asked about the Blackwater contract and received denials.

"They continue to look the other way in the face of overwhelming evidence that Halliburton was charging taxpayers for unauthorized security services," Van Hollen said.

The hidden contract not only cost taxpayers money, but it might have been illegal. The Halliburton subsidiary's main contract for military support services prohibited hiring subcontractors to provide armed security. That job is left to the U.S. military, unless the theater commander decides otherwise.

Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the Blackwater contract.

Waxman, D-Calif., has cited examples in news reports that Blackwater paid employees $600 a day, and those charges increased to $1,500 a day by the time several layers of subcontractors tacked on their charges to the main contractor.

Waxman is at the forefront of Democrats who want to investigate fraud, waste and abuse in the Bush administration, and on Tuesday he promised two years of such scrutiny.

On Tuesday, Army Secretary Francis Harvey wrote Van Hollen and Waxman that on Jan. 30 the Army learned that ESS Support Services Worldwide, a dining facilities subcontractor under the KBR contract, hired Blackwater.

ESS didn't hire Blackwater directly, but did so through a hotel company, further obscuring the contract.

Harvey further said the security costs were not itemized anywhere, yet were factored into ESS' labor costs under KBR's contract, which in turn is financed by U.S. taxpayers.

"The U.S. Army is continuing to investigate this matter and we are committed to providing full disclosure of the results of our investigations to the committee," he wrote.

In July Harvey sent a letter to Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., then chairman of the committee's national security subcommittee, that cited KBR as saying it never had directly hired a private security contractor under its overall support contract.

Harvey added that KBR "has queried ESS and they are unaware of any services under the ... contract that were provided by Blackwater USA."

In September, an Army procurement official, Tina Ballard, appeared before the committee and said she verified that Harvey's prior letter — asserting that no contract could be found — was correct.

Van Hollen held up a copy of Blackwater's contract at the hearing, and Ballard still contended Blackwater provided no services to the Halliburton subsidiary.

At the end of November, the lawmakers received further evidence that the Pentagon was wrong. The parent firm of ESS, responding to questions posed by Republican committee staff, confirmed that it used Blackwater for security under the contract with Halliburton's subsidiary.

Van Hollen and Waxman pressed the Pentagon again, leading to the Army secretary's admission Tuesday that the contract existed.

Blackwater employees have suffered heavy casualties in Iraq. In 2004 an Iraqi mob killed four employees, dragged their bodies through the streets of Fallujah and hung two from a bridge.

In September 2005, the company said three of its employees were killed in Mosul.

And last month, Blackwater confirmed that five of its employees were killed in a helicopter that went down in Baghdad under heavy fire.

B Sousa
7th Feb 2007, 17:35
"Meanwhile, back in Washington DC, they are trying to figure out if Blackwater has a contract. It turns out Blackwater is a dining facilities contractor......"

Be serious, those in the know,know.....Most of the public does not know because they cant read or care less.

Two's in
7th Feb 2007, 18:35
SAS,

I'm only highlighting Dick Cheney because he is the current VP and his name comes up a lot. I am by no means suggesting that you can't be a lying, cheating, scumbag if you are a Democrat, indeed, those seem to be mandatory qualifications for all politicians these days. Open Government, yeah, right on...

SirVivr
8th Feb 2007, 02:19
"delivering misery in the name of democracy"

Quaint. Simplistic. Jingoistic.

I best consume fruit juice at Steak&Ale.

Nah, single Malt confers enlightenment.

Cuban Cigars confers coolness.

Difference of opinion confers that others are wrong.

Maybe, I am right again.

Chas A
SirVivr

B Sousa
8th Feb 2007, 05:55
"Cuban Cigars confers coolness."

Better leave those in Trinidad, Customs still frowns on them.

NO non-alcoholic Fruit Juice at Snake and Tail.