2007-10-18 14:19:22 · 13 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
American (below) No. Just anti-mercs for hire that indiscriminately gun down unarmed civilians because they can.
2007-10-18 14:25:22 · update #1
Willis Jeffords (below) LOL. You provide some stiff competition so I am trying to keep pace. LOL
2007-10-18 14:33:54 · update #2
koalatco (below) Woo Hooooo! You didn't paste the Clinton tyrade! OK, now I'm impressed. What gives?
Good response BTW.
2007-10-18 14:35:35 · update #3
It is linked to a international terrorist sponser who also sponsers Israel known as Bush admin. And they run our country so i dont know....
2007-10-18 14:29:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
i think its more important and an immediate priority to liberate ourselves from the group known as the pelosi/reid regime. blackwater is not known as a terrorist group and im unclear what reference you have but the pelosi reid regime has been known to play loose cannon and sabotage the legitimate defense of the us and us interests for poltical gain.
perhaps if you wilkopedia the idea of unilateral surrender= raw cowardice, youll understand why i question your prioritizing blackwater when in reality pelosi, from the stunting in syria to the grandstanding with 757gate is the much bigger threat.
2007-10-18 21:33:51 · answer #2 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ha ha...that's a good one.
you realize of course, once blackwater is out the regular troops follow.
It's a sticky war the right hand is held to the highest standards and punitive measures, the left hand...don't ask about the left hand, never speak of the left hand, if you see the left hand coming...close your eyes.
2007-10-18 21:27:50 · answer #3 · answered by in pain 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, but I don't know why anyone supports them. They've even held our own soldiers at gunpoint. So if you support the troops, the least you could say is that you don't support the mercenaries.
2007-10-18 21:35:29 · answer #4 · answered by Ben Has Questions 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's hope so, but Black Water is a conservative owned company, so Bush may try to keep them there despite the Iraqi protest.
2007-10-18 21:33:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Uh huh. Criminals have a similar opinion about law enforcement here in the U.S. Does that mean we need to get rid of our local law enforcement because scum bags don't like them.
2007-10-18 21:36:38 · answer #6 · answered by Johnny P 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Chi guy,
I don't know where you get this stuff, or why you think the way you do, but it is fun to read. You're tireless.
Willis
To answer your question, the US is already planning to reduce/remove dependence on blackwater.
2007-10-18 21:29:20 · answer #7 · answered by WJ 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The US pay Blackwater a lot of money to cause chaos.
2007-10-18 21:30:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I doubt it seeing as how we sent them there... but I suppose optimism is a virtue... so maybe.
2007-10-18 21:57:37 · answer #9 · answered by vegan_geek 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The owners of Blackwater should be charged with treason.
For starters the average cost of a guard costs the US taxpayer 445,000 a year.
The Neocons love the war for the money, money, money!
2007-10-18 21:24:11 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋