Why is BlackwaterUSA training Canadian troops??

[moderateamericain]

Possibly not, I wouldn't know but I have no problem with private companies doing training for our military.

They are not the best, they are just well financed and large.

Theres an outfit out of England thats a small group of former SAS and Navy Seals that are probably the best trained merc unit out there. Or so I am told.

Edited October 2, 2007 by moderateamericain

[Visionseeker]

You get your training where you can get the best. That the best in the business is a private firm in the US and not the US military is quite telling IMO.

[jennie]

You get your training where you can get the best. That the best in the business is a private firm in the US and not the US military is quite telling IMO.

I think best "available" is the issue perhaps. idunno

[kengs333]

In Northern Europe their opponents were often Waffen SS. At Ortona they were up against paratroops. Hardly second rate troops. You have a point about training and equipment. Canada's military had been allowed to deteriorate to a point where there wasn't a solid core on which to base a large military and basically had to start from scratch. Same goes for equipment but when it came to armour, the Germans outclassed anything the western allies had until very near the end of the war.

That has been Canada's biggest failing when it has gone to war. It has rarely been properly prepared in the beginning and as a result a lot of people have been killed who shouldn't have.

In northern Europe they did face some Waffen SS units, but these were members of the Hitler Jugend Division, boys of sixteen and seventeen years of age. I think many people put to much stock in the fact that Waffen SS units were somehow all elite units. They weren't. The first few that were formed early on could be considered elite, but even they were worn down by such high casualty rates that by 1943/44 that they were no better than the average Wehrmacht division. Granted some SS units fought tenaciously because the men knew that they were dead anyways if they surrendered. Anyone who has studied the N. European campaign knows that the units were second rate. The German's main concern was with the Russians, that's where most of the men and equipment were deployed. Were the Germans not at war with Russia, the Allies never would have been able to set foot on the Continent.

[M.Dancer]

Besides the toaster, is there a credible link to this rumour?

[moderateamericain]

There was a House committee that interviewed the CEO of blackwater yesterday. I stand corrected they are doing a great job. Of all the people they had to protect they have not loss a single one. Which is an impeciable record to me. What disturbed me about the proceedings is the Democrats, who obviously had an agenda here, were siteing two specific incidents as the "REASON" for the interview. One involved the deaths of 2 blackwater pilots and 3 US army personel including a Lt. Colonel. Apparently the pilots crashed into a mountain side and it was deemed from listening to the black box that they were playing slalom with the afghani mountains. Never a good idea. The 2nd incident that they harped on was a Blackwater employee got drunk on christmas eve and killed a guard to the vice president of Iraq. Blackwater fined him thousands of dollars, fired him, and put him on a plane back to the USA within 2 days. The Democrats went into a tizzy fit about how they should have prosecuted him and held him there etc. Well Blackwater has absolutely no authority to charge anyone with anything. It was quite funny to actually see the democrats lights blink on when they realized it was the US government that should have charged him with homocide. As a last act of defiance to a dead argument they accused Blackwater of covering it up by sending him home to the US.

The third and finally thing, which broke the camels back, as far as me continuing to watch this witch hunt was they chastised him on innocent civilians getting killed. Blackwater went thru the ROE. Did you know that in the 18,000 plus missions that they run in the last 5 years. they have fired there weapons in anger less than 1 percent of the time. Do the math. Apparently an Iraqi civilian was on the side of the street and got hit and killed by a riccotchet when they fired on a suicide bomber. Apparently it would have been better if they all let themselves get blown up then accidnetly and freakishly kill one civilian.

to summarize: the whole thing was a joke and everyone in there knew it.

[trex]

Apparently an Iraqi civilian was on the side of the street and got hit and killed by a riccotchet when they fired on a suicide bomber. Apparently it would have been better if they all let themselves get blown up then accidnetly and freakishly kill one civilian.

oh? i thought twenty civilians were killed in that latest incident, and the description was of blackwater mecenaries firing indiscriminately in all directions.

->It was quite funny to actually see the democrats lights blink on when they realized it was the US government that should have charged him with homocide.

i would say, the iraqi government should have been the one who chrged him with this, since the crime was committed in iraq. but of course, that would not be desireable for the americans to have one of their citizens charged under the law of a country they have attacked.

->to summarize: the whole thing was a joke and everyone in there knew it.

sorry to hear that you find so much humour in this situation. the real SAD joke is, how we can just brush off of deaths of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

[moderateamericain]

oh? i thought twenty civilians were killed in that latest incident, and the description was of blackwater mecenaries firing indiscriminately in all directions.

->It was quite funny to actually see the democrats lights blink on when they realized it was the US government that should have charged him with homocide.

i would say, the iraqi government should have been the one who chrged him with this, since the crime was committed in iraq. but of course, that would not be desireable for the americans to have one of their citizens charged under the law of a country they have attacked.

->to summarize: the whole thing was a joke and everyone in there knew it.

sorry to hear that you find so much humour in this situation. the real SAD joke is, how we can just brush off of deaths of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

Ever been in a warzone? Ever been fired at. Ever heard of something called the fog of war? Also the 20 people killed are you certain it was Blackwater employees? theres over 170 private contractor companies working security in Iraq today.

I can brush them off easily because its a warzone and they have a less then 1 percent actual use of force in all there missions combined. Not even the police in the United states can boast that. As far as private firms under contract by the State department any crime committed in a foriegn country make you susceptible to be charge for a crime under US law. If they wanna extradite him back to iraq for sentencing then that would be up to the department of justice now wouldn't it.

Edited October 3, 2007 by moderateamericain

[M.Dancer]

Ever heard of something called the fog of war?

The fog of war refers to a bigger picture than a fire fight or skirmish. The issue is whether Blackwater can act without fear of retailation from the iraqi or US judiciary and whether Blackwater can gaurentee or ensure that their employees follow strict ROE.

[Wilber]

The fog of war refers to a bigger picture than a fire fight or skirmish.

Not really, a lot of so called "friendly fire" incidents happen during small actions.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can brush them off easily because its a warzone and they have a less then 1 percent actual use of force in all there missions combined. Not even the police in the United states can boast that. As far as private firms under contract by the State department any crime committed in a foriegn country make you susceptible to be charge for a crime under US law. If they wanna extradite him back to iraq for sentencing then that would be up to the department of justice now wouldn't it.

Have to agree with you here....Blackwater fills a gap in resources and specialized training, and really act as force multipliers for high value targets. Should they be held accountable and liable for decisions and actions....absolutely, but I am sure there are disclaimers in there busines plan, contracts, and insurance policies!

It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

The idea is not new..see Pinkerton National Detective Agency

[M.Dancer]

Not really, a lot of so called "friendly fire" incidents happen during small actions.

Ummm...yeah...but that isn't the issue. The fog of war refers to the strategic picture of the battlefield. It is an allusion to the age of black powder when the smoke from the small arms and artillery obscured the General's view of the battle field and he had to guess at the enemies formation. It led to regiments being moved up the line to counter non existant formations etc etc. It doesn't refer to the confusion of a firefight or skirmish...although in this day and age when nouns can be turned into verbs, lets ramp up the misnomers.

.........there are better terms more accurate terms to explain friendly fire.

[moderateamericain]

Ummm...yeah...but that isn't the issue. The fog of war refers to the strategic picture of the battlefield. It is an allusion to the age of black powder when the smoke from the small arms and artillery obscured the General's view of the battle field and he had to guess at the enemies formation. It led to regiments being moved up the line to counter non existant formations etc etc. It doesn't refer to the confusion of a firefight or skirmish...although in this day and age when nouns can be turned into verbs, lets ramp up the misnomers.

.........there are better terms more accurate terms to explain friendly fire.

If you prefer Confusion on the battlefield. Be my guest. Its used interchangable in military circles. Strict definition or not.

[Wilber]

Ummm...yeah...but that isn't the issue. The fog of war refers to the strategic picture of the battlefield. It is an allusion to the age of black powder when the smoke from the small arms and artillery obscured the General's view of the battle field and he had to guess at the enemies formation. It led to regiments being moved up the line to counter non existant formations etc etc. It doesn't refer to the confusion of a firefight or skirmish...although in this day and age when nouns can be turned into verbs, lets ramp up the misnomers.

.........there are better terms more accurate terms to explain friendly fire.

I always thought it was a loss of situational awareness. It could be because of a lack of visual information as you suggest, poor communications, others giving incorrect information. Any number of things. In this respect, I don't see much difference between a general who loses control of a battle because of a lack of information and a soldier in a firefight who makes a mistake because he can't figure out who is shooting at him.

[Keepitsimple]

Topaz is not the most Harper-friendly or Military-friendly poster on this site. It would be best if he would post the source of his accusations to help readers put things in context. Another poster has already provided a link and quote but for those who missed it - here it is again:

Link: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b0-e1a7afe6b805

"The Canadian Forces has occasionally contracted companies to provide specialized training to our personnel in those cases when specialized training is not available within the Canadian Forces due to a range of factors, including the unavailability of training resources, expertise or specialized facilities and equipment," Lt.-Col. Robertson said. He said the training is adapted to Canadian Forces requirements and procedures.

[M.Dancer]

I always thought it was a loss of situational awareness. It could be because of a lack of visual information as you suggest, poor communications, others giving incorrect information. Any number of things. In this respect, I don't see much difference between a general who loses control of a battle because of a lack of information and a soldier in a firefight who makes a mistake because he can't figure out who is shooting at him.

Yeah, like I said words and terms evolve. The fog of war originates with Clauswitz