And yes, the lines are blurred. But I say Blackwater is simply doing what it learned to do by watching the U.S. government.

And yes, the lines are blurred. But I say Blackwater is simply doing what it learned to do by watching the U.S. government.

I'm glad we have some agreement as a basis. This is good.

The difference in the bribery you point out (assuming you are referring to the CIA payments to Karzai's brother) is Blackwater is trying to quell criticisms to further buy their way into more profit taking after having committed the worst civilian atrocity of the war. There is a big difference in strategic covert bribery and hush money for murders.

I disagree strongly with your premise that the U.S. military “blasts the living crap out of civilians”. Given experience in Iraq, I'd say our uniformed men and women are much more likely to wage war in an honorable fashion than private mercenaries. We'll agree that whenever civilians are killed it is tragic and if it is done purposefully those involved should be punished. My argument is the record of the military is better than that of private security firms. The motives are different and the leadership is most certainly different.

I have a beef with killing innocent civilians and trying to cover it up with hush money because you might lose out on profiteering on the conflict. I also have a beef with who is waging wars in our name.

My comment that privatizing the military is a recipe for disaster has empirical evidence. I don't find it funny and certainly not the funniest thing in a month. It can hurt our military mission and lower the moral of troops. I'd support taking the billions we spend on private contractors and using it to train and pay our service-members better.

#2 is a bogus question on face. The U.S. military and U.S. foreign policy are two completely separate things. The military merely carries out the policy. The problem has arisen when there is confusion in policy which hampers the ability to effectively carry out the military mission. [cough] Iraq [cough] (and soon to be, if not alread, Afghanistan)

My point remains that the blurring of the lines between what a private “security” firm does and what the military does is dangerous and counter-productive. This practice should stop.

1. Blackwater's actions are outrageous, yes. You are right to point this out. But the U.S. does the same thing by placating governments and their corrupt politicians (Afghanistan in my comment, but you can throw Iraq and Pakistan in there also) by offering them billions foreign aid while our military blasts the living crap out of their civilians. Its only a difference in scale, unless of course you think the U.S. military machine ought to have a monopoly on such business practices. Is your beef with what is being done, or who's doing it?

2. Would you call the U.S. military and foreign policy sans Blackwater a success? Surely not.

Hey! Haven't I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Afghanistan.

And “…privatizing the military is a recipe for continued disaster” is the funniest thing I've heard in a month.

Hey! Haven't I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Afghanistan.

And “…privatizing the military is a recipe for continued disaster” is the funniest thing I've heard in a month.