why didn't the republicans hire blackwater to invade Iraq?

Question

Instead of using $3 billion dollars a week of U.S. tax payer money. And getting 3700 American troops killed.

Why not simply hire Blackwater and take over Iraq?

Just think, you could invade Iraq witha civilian militia. save our troops lives. And then since you hired Blackwater, you could move to Iraq.

what a deal. Instead you use taxpayer dollars for Iraq rather than healthcare for American citizens.

Wouldn't the wise thing for republicans be to simpl move to Iraq? they love it better than America. And they have blackwater. what could be better?

oh I know- a free ride on the American taxpayer to the tune of $100,000 per minute? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002780385_spending03.html

and 3700 American lives wasted for a war you could have simply hired Blackwater to do?

Do us Americans a favor next war you republicans start. Leave the American troops lives alone. And he U.S. tax dollars in the U.S.

Bet the republicans can't wait to move to Iraq.

Answer 1

Blackwater doesn't have the capabilities to invade a country. that is why they were only hired to occupy Iraq.

Part of that $3 million is used to pay Blackwater, which is a republican business firm. One of the qualifications to get hired by Blackwater is that you must be a republican and you must have voted for Bush to become president or you don't get the job.

Answer 2

Blackwater does work there, but they are A HELL OF A LOT more expensive than most normal soldiers. Blackwater troops get paid around a $200,000 per year whereas an enlistee only gets maybe a fourth of that at best. Also, you need an actual army to do things like assault cities and anything requiring serious firepower. A bunch of Blackwater operators, bad-*** though they may be, aren't going to carry out major assaults as well as a handful of tanks can.

Sorry this doesn't have to do with your question but one of the answers; I just have to respond to the implication that Saddam was a "terrorist dictator". Yes he was ruthless but what he did wasn't completely unreasonable. Many Americans don't realize that the "genocide" he was accused of was from him gassing several towns that were in rebellion against the Iraqi nation, and was condoned by the international community at the time. Yes that is extreme but it also saved a lot of lives by preventing potential civil war. A civil war we are now seeing in the wake of his absence.

Also there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that he had anything to do with supporting 9/11 or that even if he had nukes that he would have any intentions of using them on us. We weren't Iraq's main concern, Iran was.

Answer 3

Do you comprehend that those mercenaries value extra beneficial than our very own military? Plus who ever stated those a hundred and seventy,000 are extra beneficial than our very own troop must be mentally gradual, reason the US Marines by myself have around 3 hundred,000 infantrymen. Plus those agencies don't have humane regulations that the U.S. protection tension have (which carry us back to a pair element) i don't comprehend yet i'm human sufficient to desire that in the time of all this the folk of Iraq don't get screwed through the two aspects. And whilst this conflict would desire to wreck the tax payers there are human beings in Iraq that are grateful for the troops being there. And until you have been to Iraq do not tell me i'm mendacity reason the media purely say issues as they sense gets extra score. would desire to of you do not comprehend what it feels want to be there, you should sit down down and consult with the translators so as that they are able to allow you comprehend appropriate to the certainty of their united states of america. interior the top a employed military isn't able to doing what a profesional military is. A profesional military it particularly is much extra humane and that i've got faith that it particularly is fairly certainly worth the diference in funds.

Answer 4

Isn't Blackwater made up of Americans just as our military is?
By sending Blackwater to invade instead of our military, when it was done we would have left Iraq wide open to other terrorist dictators. I do not like the Iraq war but I think your plan may actually be worse than Bush's plan.

Answer 5

WHAT??? What??? You better thank a Republican for protecting your freedom. Don't accuse anybody of starting a war when we are just defending ourselves and preventing another 9/11 from happening. Let me guess, you want a country to invade us before we go to war right? What Bush did was called being PROACTIVE, not REACTIVE. Why wait for another terrorist attack, that may have killed 3700 in one day. Can you imagine what would have happened if the terrorist would have waited until that next Sunday, Sept 16, 2001 and would have flown a plane into a crowded NFL stadium? That could have killed well over 10,000 people. You would be b!tchen right now if we hadn't gone to war and would have been attacked again, you would be saying "why didn't Bush do anything."

Answer 6

It wasn't in the budget.
They had to lose the money for Blackwater and the like during the war.

Besides, they did not want the conflict to end.

Answer 7

I dont think it could have been done quietly. If it could have been then that would have been great.

Otherwise its just as bad whether a nation invades another, or it pays mercs to do it.

Answer 8

Because they still havent been able to contact aliens to ask them yet. We want to have our oil workers free from any distraction so it would have been ideal to have all the Iraquis abducted by aliens. But so far, no luck.

Answer 9

They didn't have a ship that W could land on and fly his banner," Mission Accomplished"

Answer 10

They are not buddy buddy enough with Bush & Dick