Now a days it's like playing Where's Waldo when it comes to finding BlackWater's founding father & mogul, Eric Prince. Some of the last reports I heard was of being in Dubia, just living the life, fueled up, driving an Italian sports car. Nowadays you will find Mr. Prince and the power of a $500,000,000 dollar investment fund, doing quick flips for profit, building capacity (oil refinery, trains) in Africa. He's doing a lot of exploration and working with drones, trying to create a security and logistics business model to aid with the Chinese investments coming there now. I just wonder if their are any on the Hide with certain skills that maybe getting tired of the simple life outside of service??? Always follow where the good money goes and you will always come out on top in the end. Maybe this will put a spark under someone to do research, to aid the Hide members in a super investment.. Be sure you post!!
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
BlackWaters Founder Eric Prince In Africa
- Thread starter TravelingMan
- Start date
Fuckkk him, he is a whore. I hope he gets what he deserves in Africa and never sets foot on our soil again. Not a fan of mercenaries.
The other interesting thing about Africa is they carry little cash or credit cards and pay with most stuff by cell phone. At least the 'modern' areas: What Africa Can Teach Us About the Future of Banking - Businessweek
Perhaps I shouldnt stick my nose where I dont have solid knowledge but Im at the end of a double why not?
Blackwater just another example of the abrogation of responsibility by those tasked with being responsibile.
Why legislate when you can have a letter agency run amok, why adjudicate and protect the law when you can say its for the voters to decide, why lead when you can cry and say your taking your ball, leaving the field and doing what you want to do anyway, why create a winning strategy when you ensure your insulated from the wrath of those your screwing over by building a little private security detail to insulate you from "them"?
Reminds me of the scene at the end of the move "The Boys in Company C" when the fat prick is surround by his spersonal security detail crying "Save Me, Save Me!" as he runs while the Marines are battling for his screwed up country.
Blackwater just another example of the abrogation of responsibility by those tasked with being responsibile.
Why legislate when you can have a letter agency run amok, why adjudicate and protect the law when you can say its for the voters to decide, why lead when you can cry and say your taking your ball, leaving the field and doing what you want to do anyway, why create a winning strategy when you ensure your insulated from the wrath of those your screwing over by building a little private security detail to insulate you from "them"?
Reminds me of the scene at the end of the move "The Boys in Company C" when the fat prick is surround by his spersonal security detail crying "Save Me, Save Me!" as he runs while the Marines are battling for his screwed up country.
Last edited:
I personally don't see nothing wrong with war profiteering as a profession. Their"s no different then 18yr. old Joe wanting to die for his country, except one thing, 18yr old Joe doesn't get paid a damn and only gets a free education and that is if he makes it out of the shit hole he didn't really sign up for in the first place!! What's wrong with giving the job to guys that like excitement and shit?? Look at it as giving them the shit job if it makes you feel better..... In my experience, only guys that didn't get to play with the same toys or have the same excitement, didn't like contractors over seas!! Anyway,, I like cool toys and not envious of others that have what I don't, plus the money is great!!!!
If the government is going to do things in my name than let the govt do them.
If you need security for the line from the green zone to the airport have a United States serviceman do it. War is not a corporate venture. Its diplomacy by other means and the most humane way to conduct it is with the most force possible to end it as quickly as you can. Send troops, not contractors and institute a draft if you have to get the necessary numbers to apply that overwhelming force.
This crap about having a disinterested, disengaged population while depending so much on a fractional minority promotes govt and corporate abuse. Make Mr and Mrs Smith have skin in the game and they will stop watching the Kardashians long enough to ensure our wars dont get dragged out for ten years at great cost to a few and enormous profits for the war suppliers.
Part of the problem is the vast majority of the US population doesn't want war. If you look at the major conflicts of the past century, the general US population never wanted a war. You had Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc. that were the best opportunities to formally go to war, while the plans were already drawn up by the time these events occurred.
There is a geo-political endgame behind every one of those conflicts, and there is a system at work that very few people among the general population understand. Part of this system includes the political aspects of getting Congress to declare war and/or fund it and getting the people to believe in the cause enough to go and fight for it.
Make Mr. and Mrs. Smith have skin in the game without winning them over, and they might actually go out and try to stop the war in the first place. Tell them that they will be on the hook for between 5-20k each for it, and they will definitely go out and stop it. I don't even want to get into costs measured in human suffering and tragedy. Then draft them anyway, and you will see society split much worse than it did in Vietnam.
Also, wars are logistically complex ventures. You can draft as many people as you want, but wars and not fought with just guns now a days, and you need certain skill sets that the military doesn't always have enough of, so you turn to contractors.
The US not wanting war is not a problem.
The problem is that we go to war without defining what constitutes victory.
Gulf of Tonkin has serious issues as a reason for war although I think it has been proved containment was a good policy and the horrors expected of the communists upon southeast Asia came to fruition with no concern for the slaughtered by the left.
9/11 was clear cut and had a ready willing population. What screwed it up was govt over reach and declaring a war on terror. What the fuck is that? Where is the end game?
If the mission was "We are coming to kill Osama and eradicate the planners of 9/11. Turn them over or fight us. We will fight until we accomplish the goal of killing Osama. We will build you roads and infrastructure while here. We will try to get you out of the 13th century. We will leave as soon as we have killed Osama. We will come back if you ever pull this shit again." That is a mission statement that is clear concise and achievable.
Shit even Iraq is justified on the grounds the 91 truce was broken. Mission statement "A. The UN will provide a coalition to enforce the truce through use of force. B. Failure to do so will result in US withdrawla from this impotent, useless organization C. If a coalition of the UN is formed the US will lead and prosecute a war until the govt of Iraq is in compliance with the truce or until the govt is conquered and replaced"
No mention of WMD other than it was a violation in addition to others. We put all our eggs in one basket and became the only enforcer of a policy set up by the useless UN.
Last edited:
I'm not going to discuss further as it will definitely be crossing into the line of no politics. However, I'll propose the end game still is the establishment of docile, malleable, and controllable Iraqi and Afghan governments sympathetic to US interests. The UN doesn't share those characteristics, although they certainly have a dog in the hunt regarding the region.
What I don't understand is why the U.S. has let China buy up most of the mineral rights and things of that nature???
Hating Mr. Prince is hating capitalism. The same drive that pushed him to create an empire is what once mad us great. He saw opportunity and worked his ass off to make his services valuable and got paid well for it. It is unfortunate the way it ended because other countries will continue to profit and succeed from his genius. If I was thrown under the bus in the same fashion then I would be doing the same.
Simple, China needs the energy more than us, plus we are in Africa in a big big way already, where we want to be, they tend to go where we are not going.
x2
One minute Mr Prince was "our man" overseas, then he wasnt. From what I understand, a lot of the Blackwater guys did some good shit over there. My heart goes out to Delta4-3 and his guys, stuff like that is senseless.
I know bogey is in here somewhere. Something that is kinda interesting, I saw on a documentary where a former contractor was talking about how the American contractors seem to have to import Americana everywhere with them, and "disrupt the natural culture" if you will. Whereas the Brits were much quieter in that regard. For yall that have been down range as a contractor, what say you on this?
Interesting thought....... mercenaries have been around since adam and eve...... mercenaries guard the Vatican... what is the American service man...but a mercenary for those in power/big business.......????
I would never consider American serviceman a mercenary. Our brothers and sisters who have served are soldiers who pledge and oath and die with valor. Respect those men and women for fight for our country's freedom and security.
AMF
AMF
You have a distorted view of what a mercenary and an American soldier is. I don't know one soldier that considers himself a mercenary nor do I know one that thinks they are fighting for power/big business, not one.
To cure your outright ignorance please read the definition.
A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
To cure your outright ignorance please read the definition.
A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Being a mercenary doesn't make someone a bad person. A mercenary could easily be more patriotic than a sworn soldier who is only there to get his college tuition paid for. So realize that upfront, that what I am about to say is not a reflection on the personal qualities of any individual contractor or soldier at all.
Mercenaries, who now fight under the politically correct term of "contractor", are damaging to the rule of law. They have the training and capability to apply force outside the military chain of command. This allows the politician or agency that hires them to have more power than our law ever intended, with less oversight than sworn lawful combatants. While this makes them more efficient and flexible, we clearly have laws in place for a reason. Eventually they will always do something that a legal combatant would not be allowed to do - who decides then what law if any they fall under? Combatants on the field of battle, which mercs are, must be under the same law if we say we are a law abiding nation. I won't even get into the obvious conflicts of interest and the danger involved with separate chains of command, one legal and one financial. See Najaf 2004....
A soldier has both the responsibility to and the protection of the UCMJ and the rules of engagement of the combatant commander. Like all men with a job, a mercenary in the end is loyal to the man that signs his paycheck, the only restraint being the extent of his own morality. They are not subject to posse comitatus in civil use, and worse have not been delegated authority from the citizens as is the case with a sworn law enforcement officer. Therefore they have no more authority to use or project force than any other citizen and yet will if ordered. Their use in New Orleans in a police role was one of the worst abuses of the Constitution in modern times even if they operated professionally and were helpful.
Many if not most of the problems in this country derive from politicians who abuse the power delegated to them from the people by assuming an "ends justifies the means" approach. In a Constitutional Republic, the ends never justify the means. We either have the rule of law or the rule of man, and the rule of man always leads to illegitimate government, abuse of power, loss of faith in government and eventually civil unrest. All because some suits with their own agendas decide they know better than the law, or claim exigent circumstances require they assume a little more power than we have given them. Is it any wonder then that we now find our nation in a perpetual state of emergency "requiring" ever increasing government powers with less oversight by, and often without even the knowledge of, the citizens? NSA wire taps without warrants are one example, the use of mercenary armies are another. Even if either one of them actually promotes our security, neither is Constitutional, and neither is consistent with the rule of law and supportive of the perception of legitimate government. The perception of legitimacy is critical to civil society, and impossible these days to fake.
Incidentally, the Consititution in Art I Sect 8 does give Congress the authority the grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal, which would grant a private person the authority to engage in hostilities. It was used in a time of true national emergency in the War of 1812, when national sovereignty was at stake, the White House burned, and we had US Navy that could never be brought up to speed in time to come close to matching the overwhelming superiority of the British fleet. Though such mercenary use was banned by international treaty in the mid 1800s, we did not sign but have since abided by the treaty requirements. The fact that we still have the means to legally employ privateers/mercs and simply choose not to do so, even in WW2, is telling. Today our Congress will neither declare war, nor legalize mercenary action, because politicians actually prefer to operate outside the law, so that they are no longer accountable (read responsible to the people) for the results. The illegal abdication of their Congressional responsibility is but one reason the President is far more powerful than the founders ever intended, one reason why the people have lost faith in our government, and therefore one more reason why we risk civil unrest. Men will endure some injustice due to inevitable human folly as long as they still have faith in the overall legitimacy of government, that government still substantially operates in accordance with the law. However, when the authorities use the color of law to act unlawfully, that faith is destroyed and that government will eventually be smacked in the face by its citizens with the harsh reality that its own unlawfulness is contagious. With an a frightening 7% Congressional approval rating I leave it to the discerning reader to measure how far along we are in that process.
Mercenaries, who now fight under the politically correct term of "contractor", are damaging to the rule of law. They have the training and capability to apply force outside the military chain of command. This allows the politician or agency that hires them to have more power than our law ever intended, with less oversight than sworn lawful combatants. While this makes them more efficient and flexible, we clearly have laws in place for a reason. Eventually they will always do something that a legal combatant would not be allowed to do - who decides then what law if any they fall under? Combatants on the field of battle, which mercs are, must be under the same law if we say we are a law abiding nation. I won't even get into the obvious conflicts of interest and the danger involved with separate chains of command, one legal and one financial. See Najaf 2004....
A soldier has both the responsibility to and the protection of the UCMJ and the rules of engagement of the combatant commander. Like all men with a job, a mercenary in the end is loyal to the man that signs his paycheck, the only restraint being the extent of his own morality. They are not subject to posse comitatus in civil use, and worse have not been delegated authority from the citizens as is the case with a sworn law enforcement officer. Therefore they have no more authority to use or project force than any other citizen and yet will if ordered. Their use in New Orleans in a police role was one of the worst abuses of the Constitution in modern times even if they operated professionally and were helpful.
Many if not most of the problems in this country derive from politicians who abuse the power delegated to them from the people by assuming an "ends justifies the means" approach. In a Constitutional Republic, the ends never justify the means. We either have the rule of law or the rule of man, and the rule of man always leads to illegitimate government, abuse of power, loss of faith in government and eventually civil unrest. All because some suits with their own agendas decide they know better than the law, or claim exigent circumstances require they assume a little more power than we have given them. Is it any wonder then that we now find our nation in a perpetual state of emergency "requiring" ever increasing government powers with less oversight by, and often without even the knowledge of, the citizens? NSA wire taps without warrants are one example, the use of mercenary armies are another. Even if either one of them actually promotes our security, neither is Constitutional, and neither is consistent with the rule of law and supportive of the perception of legitimate government. The perception of legitimacy is critical to civil society, and impossible these days to fake.
Incidentally, the Consititution in Art I Sect 8 does give Congress the authority the grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal, which would grant a private person the authority to engage in hostilities. It was used in a time of true national emergency in the War of 1812, when national sovereignty was at stake, the White House burned, and we had US Navy that could never be brought up to speed in time to come close to matching the overwhelming superiority of the British fleet. Though such mercenary use was banned by international treaty in the mid 1800s, we did not sign but have since abided by the treaty requirements. The fact that we still have the means to legally employ privateers/mercs and simply choose not to do so, even in WW2, is telling. Today our Congress will neither declare war, nor legalize mercenary action, because politicians actually prefer to operate outside the law, so that they are no longer accountable (read responsible to the people) for the results. The illegal abdication of their Congressional responsibility is but one reason the President is far more powerful than the founders ever intended, one reason why the people have lost faith in our government, and therefore one more reason why we risk civil unrest. Men will endure some injustice due to inevitable human folly as long as they still have faith in the overall legitimacy of government, that government still substantially operates in accordance with the law. However, when the authorities use the color of law to act unlawfully, that faith is destroyed and that government will eventually be smacked in the face by its citizens with the harsh reality that its own unlawfulness is contagious. With an a frightening 7% Congressional approval rating I leave it to the discerning reader to measure how far along we are in that process.
Last edited:
It's actually more expensive, but outsourcing sensitive operations adds one more layer to opaqueness. If the US government and its officers fail to accomplish a goal, they look like bad. If a contractor fails to accomplish it's goal, the government is effectively shielded. If the government breaks the law, they look really bad. If a contractor breaks the law, the government is effectively shielded.
Of course then you have situations like this: http://www.newsweek.com/blackwater-...l-state-department-investigator-report-256797
What do you guys think that a contractor actually does? I am curious to see what misconceptions you guys have so blindly accepted.
I agree with that statement completely!!! The statement that you haven't even made yet!! I know! It's ashame so many believe what Fox or CNN report. Plus, the world of contractor made a 360 degree turn after that BlackWater situation in Iraq.. Hiring now, is more focused on guys with law enforcement training, not soldiering.. That bothers me as well and have seen a reflection of this in the law enforcement community.. But, that's a whole another topic.
Calm down, big guy. Remember what bogeybrown advised you in the other thread...notice how your last one didnt remain around long. THINK>
How many of you bleeding assholes have been shot at? How many of you have had your cammies stand on their own after they've dried? Most of you would probably hold a dick in your mouth for a paycheck so why the fuck are you bitching here? Some dude wants to start his own army and other ventures, good fucking on him. "I hope he gets what he deserves and never sets foot on our soil again" get the fuck out of here. What fucking business is it of yours? You're just fucking ignorant. This country was founded upon the back of fuck you and built atop the biggest dick. I say good on him
He is getting paid my my dollars, and my government to do what soldiers should be doing with their leaders held responsible for the outcome, that's what makes it my business.
Quit with the "I been shot at" BS, you think you are the only one to be shot at?
I can only assume you're a fuck up online too and intended to quote me instead of yourself... Bitch I've fired more fucking rounds in combat than you have on a fucking range. Who the fuck cares who he's getting paid from? You'd rather have your shit going to some dumb shit do nothing dirt bag politicians? The fuck have they done really? This dude has taken out some trash,case fucking closed. What has anybody else receiving your precious tax dollars done? Bitch
Wrong. Educate yourself on what the mission of contractors is before you start slandering their profession.
Last edited:
Such badassery has changed my mind. You're right, I must be too ignorant to find the part of the law where we all get to raise private armies but I'm gonna play catch up. We can carve everything up like sub-saharan African warlords livin the dream. Awesome! Anyone need some interdiction, offensive counter air, or some close air support? I laugh at MRAPS, BMPs, Abrams, T-72s, hell any tank in existence, or bridges, dams, bunkers etc etc. Mig-29s, Su 35s, no problem. Drones...LOL. I'm available to the highest bidder but you better bring some coin cause a bad MF dont come cheap...
You are implying that mercenaries are now called contractors? I was unaware of the definition change, missed the memo. Don't take what I am saying about the use of mercenaries as a denigration of the path people choose, I just don't like the use of them by my government. Have the balls to send in the Mil and let them do the job that needs doing or don't send them in the first place. There is nothing the mercenaries offer that SOF or regular troops cant do and if there is the mercenaries probably shouldn't being doing it while getting paid by my government. Hiring mercenaries is just a convenient way to avoid accountability and I don't like it. I also don't like the drain it causes on our experienced forces leaving the Mil to join BW or others of their ilk and many other issues. I am not a fan of using contractors except above depot level for logistics and support, that should be a function of the Mil, not civilian companies sucking at the teet. Just my opinion on this subject gents, sorry if you don't agree, and if you get offended too fkn bad.
I'm not offended; I find your ignorance humorous. You are obviously not going to do any research on the topic so let me help you. Contractors (who you are calling mercenaries) conduct defensive operations. Their job is to do everything in their power to AVOID confrontation and DEFEND their clients. This involves route reconnaissance, site surveys, intel analysis, defensive/evasive driving, and static security at some locations....defensive operations. They are allowed to defend themselves or their clients when their lives are in danger. Not only are contractors accountable for their actions, they have to report to their company (who isn't going to lose their contracting license over your stupid decisions so dont expect them to back you), your client (typically DoS, DoD, or OGA for some) and then you also have to report to local authorities (yup, Iraq/Afghan courts). If it sounds like I may have a hint of experience in this its because I spent most of my 20's in either Iraq or Afghanistan (Active Duty AND as a dirty, money hungry, blood thirsty contractor). Contractors were by far more professional by percentage than those that I met (and continue to encounter) on active duty. If you are a shithead contractor who can't do his job then you are fired; the shitheads are quickly sorted out and removed (if you make it through the vetting process).
KY: I hear Crimea has some nice scenery (and if you happen to eject, there be some nice beaches too) perhaps you should do a quickie there. Sure there might be some morally dubious missions (like leveling a village or two) but fuck morality when it comes to $$$ 
.
Its really no wonder 79.9% Americans think that they are free enough and see no problem with .gov expanding on their "protection against enemies" and that cops can/do/will go out on the highway pummeling those pesky black women. Some of you guys are beyond hope you get a post which in depth explains so that even a dumb and blind skunk could understand why having "private contractors" doing warlike business is no good and yet it doesn't come through...
PS: Knowing a thing or two second hand from ex "contractors" and who they were i'd say the best weapon against them is any kind of dope stash. Would stick to it like flies to honey.
.Its really no wonder 79.9% Americans think that they are free enough and see no problem with .gov expanding on their "protection against enemies" and that cops can/do/will go out on the highway pummeling those pesky black women. Some of you guys are beyond hope you get a post which in depth explains so that even a dumb and blind skunk could understand why having "private contractors" doing warlike business is no good and yet it doesn't come through...
PS: Knowing a thing or two second hand from ex "contractors" and who they were i'd say the best weapon against them is any kind of dope stash. Would stick to it like flies to honey.
Great now even those that should know better are pushing our decent into third world shit hole.
Russian jets are dirty, too much solid particles, will kill your lungs. Didn't you hear we are EcoBio now here in Europe so Russkie jets are a no no... But i apologize for my indiscretion I understand local needs come first .
.Finally ! We get something educational in this thread. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
WAR: Imposing your will on another people by force. The end, no holding hands and singing around the campfire, no "hearts and minds", no building infra-structure. Imposing your will by force.
Get in get it done get the fuck out.
WAR: Imposing your will on another people by force. The end, no holding hands and singing around the campfire, no "hearts and minds", no building infra-structure. Imposing your will by force.
Get in get it done get the fuck out.
Last edited:
Mercenaries been guarding the pope for more than 500 years. I don't recall hearing anybody calling them whores.
Not that that's a bad thing. Many of my best friends are whores. At least as long as the money holds out.
Not that that's a bad thing. Many of my best friends are whores. At least as long as the money holds out.
I dispute the sentence "War is not a Corporate Venture"..... you are wrong...... do some research....."War is a Corporate Venture"..
read "War is a Racket"..... by General Smedley.....
Last edited:
"War", and the business of war, is the only thing keeping our economy afloat at the moment.... I saw a write up about that somewhere last week, with numbers to prove it.. The U.S. economy is being propped up right now, so please don't fall into the camp that thinks the economy is going to ever come back.. You will loose!! Period.. I suggest buy gold and silver, because when China backs their Yuan with gold, "or other probable things", our paper isn't going to be good for nothing but wiping ones ass!!! When a world currency reset occurs, that gold will be worth, maybe $7,000 ounce and silver $500 or more! Read up on silver being so undervalued.. The majority of the worlds silver has been used up, so it could end up more rare than gold, considering it's industrial uses, like platinum. Some say it could be worth as much as gold in the future, when you consider supply and demand.. Anyway..... Back to warring and Erik Prince.....
Similar threads
