Re: The Great Blackwater Debate (Part One) -- The Movie Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Re: The Great Blackwater Debate (Part One)

Author:
Mr. Bungle

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:08:59 11/12/07 Mon
Author Host/IP: ip70-189-79-252.ok.ok.cox.net/70.189.79.252
In reply to: Jimmy 's message, "The Great Blackwater Debate (Part One)" on 05:01:42 11/12/07 Mon

I'll just takes these one at a time.

I'm glad you went first. I wanted you define the debate because I was sure you would frame it improperly, and you did. The real problem with Blackwater (and the entire idea of private government contracts) is that, like a lot of "business can do it better and cheaper" arguments, it's wrong. They don't do it better or even close to cheaper. This is part and parcel to the Republican philosophy that anything the government can do, private industry can do better and if they can't it's because of pesky "regulations". It's a two-pronged strategy they've been working at for as long as I can remember. De-regulation and diverting taxpayer money into business interests that in turn funnel back the money to the very same politicians that patronize them. That's fascism at it's most basic level, and it has fuck all to do with Eric Prince's religion, his Democratic Party cred, or whatever conspiracy theories people think up about the nature of a "private military", though, really can you blame them?

I haven't read Scahill's book, though he did enough press for me to get the gist, and frankly I would share many of his concerns. I don't think the idea of a super-elite (remember they go out of their way to say they aren't) amassing enough capital and power in Washington, and having their own Dominionist private army, being a threat is much of a stretch. You want to associate this with religion, but I don't care who a motherfucker worships if they're rich enough to make the future we all have to live in.

You idolize Prince for a few reasons but the chief one seems to be that he was born rich and still made moves you would have made, or would like to think you would. It's a status envy. But you cannot identify with being from money. You'll never know how that changes your motivations in life.

Trying to tie in the media extremists and pundits (most of the media now) into this debate will only muddy the waters. It's plain that there are two echo chambers at some point, but the fact is only one side is favored by our President. Actually, that's not even clear. I'm pretty convinced that fucker lives in his own very unique bubble. But at the very least the media ownership (doesn't Murdoch own most of it now?) favors punditry over journalism. Journalism should be a science, subject to peer review and based in fact. Greenwald is better at this than Micheal Moore, though like O'Rielly, Moore is an entertainer with an agenda.

I understand and somewhat agree with your contempt for the prosecutions for Abu Ghraib. It should have gone higher up the chain. Gonzales, Rumsfeld, and Bush. The role of private contractors remains misty for some weird reason. Or maybe not so weird.

But the fact remains the crux of my argument has to do with the idea that war should be waged by the military. Whether enlisted or drafted. I hate this war (and war in general) but if there is a calling to do the right thing the people that enlist for that cause (or even in need conscripted) are the ones that represent us, and as you know, have a long history of rising to the worthy causes.

There are almost as many "private contractors" in Iraq as regular military right now, and they get paid a lot more. It's against everything the idea of this country stands for on more levels then I can enumerate. Far from conservative populism, it's more like a small group of people who want to take over, reduce the economy to a banana republic, and be just stupid enough to think they can create an empire in the Middle East.

And I never said you hated the Constitution. I just suggested that joining Blackwater would be the right idea if you feel like killing a lot of brown people, scot-free.

Mr. B

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: The Great Blackwater Debate (Part One)	Jimmy	06:55:57 11/14/07 Wed