US embassy attacked.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-12-12, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Please explain the Context between these two comments. From my point of view, you Denied the First claim as Untrue. Fallowed it up with why the first claim IS true..... Contradictions, or what?

Sure no problem. During peace time any and all US people whether they be military or civilian are subject to the laws of the country they are in when not on US soil excluding those with diplomatic immunity.

The use of contracted guards means they are not allowed to wear a US military uniform. Without that uniform they do not speak for the US military forces or government. As such they are actually illegal combatants and easily dismissed by the US government as not an act of war when weapons are fired.

**Morningfrost** · 10-13-12, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Frost, they do it so they can claim they are cutting the military while keeping the contractors on separate books as discretionary funding. Nice to have in an election year where you are claiming you left Iraq and are leaving Afghanistan...

From what I know of it, the act of hiring significant numbers of private contractors began under Bush, and was continued under Obama. I think it's a bad decision on both their parts, but you can't crucify the one without crucifying the other.

And Smoken, the difference between the two is that while both parties (regular military and contractors) would be subject to the laws of the country they're in (for example, murder), were a regular military unit to commit some of those crimes it could be considered a sanctioned U.S. action and thus an act of war. With private contractors you're getting deniability, where you can say they're not acting under orders, they went rogue, etc. In other words, if they're caught doing something they REALLY shouldn't, it doesn't officially hurt the U.S. presence there.

~Morningfrost

**deathgodusmc** · 10-13-12, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

From what I know of it, the act of hiring significant numbers of private contractors began under Bush, and was continued under Obama. I think it's a bad decision on both their parts, but you can't crucify the one without crucifying the other.

And Smoken, the difference between the two is that while both parties (regular military and contractors) would be subject to the laws of the country they're in (for example, murder), were a regular military unit to commit some of those crimes it could be considered a sanctioned U.S. action and thus an act of war. With private contractors you're getting deniability, where you can say they're not acting under orders, they went rogue, etc. In other words, if they're caught doing something they REALLY shouldn't, it doesn't officially hurt the U.S. presence there.

~Morningfrost

Actually it started under clinton not bush. He found out fairly quick you cant make your first executive order to cut the military, send them all over the globe, and still have the resources you want where you want them. Blackwater was formed in 2000 or 2001 due to heavy usage of private security. I actually cant think of a single firm that opened under Bush unless blackwater formed shortly after he took office.

**-Lazarus-** · 10-13-12, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

From what I know of it, the act of hiring significant numbers of private contractors began under Bush, and was continued under Obama. I think it's a bad decision on both their parts, but you can't crucify the one without crucifying the other.

And Smoken, the difference between the two is that while both parties (regular military and contractors) would be subject to the laws of the country they're in (for example, murder), were a regular military unit to commit some of those crimes it could be considered a sanctioned U.S. action and thus an act of war. With private contractors you're getting deniability, where you can say they're not acting under orders, they went rogue, etc. In other words, if they're caught doing something they REALLY shouldn't, it doesn't officially hurt the U.S. presence there.

~Morningfrost

Why do people keep pointing to Bush as though two wrongs make a right? Like, well, Bush did it so Obama can too. Bullshit. If it's wrong it's wrong. Stop justifying. I say this because Bush isn't running for President. Obama is. We can't take Bush to task with our vote, but we can with Obama.

**triggerhappy2005** · 10-13-12, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Why do people keep pointing to Bush as though two wrongs make a right? Like, well, Bush did it so Obama can too. Bullshit. If it's wrong it's wrong. Stop justifying. I say this because Bush isn't running for President. Obama is. We can't take Bush to task with our vote, but we can with Obama.

Link the posts you made showing the same disgust being displayed towards Bush. If you can't find them because they don't exist, shut up.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-13-12, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Link the posts you made showing the same disgust being displayed towards Bush. If you can't find them because they don't exist, shut up.

It could even be because when he signed up for the forums Bush was in office for 4 months and Obama was running for president for 3 of them. So why dont you shut up.

**-Lazarus-** · 10-13-12, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

It could even be because when he signed up for the forums Bush was in office for 4 months and Obama was running for president for 3 of them. So why dont you shut up.

Thanks DG I appreciate that. Fact is I was never really active in the forums until this year. But I do seem to recall saying recently there were things Bush did that I didn't like at all. There are also things Bush did that were pretty brilliant. But it seems no one here would acknowledge that so what is the point...

**Morningfrost** · 10-13-12, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Why do people keep pointing to Bush as though two wrongs make a right? Like, well, Bush did it so Obama can too. Bullshit. If it's wrong it's wrong. Stop justifying. I say this because Bush isn't running for President. Obama is. We can't take Bush to task with our vote, but we can with Obama.

Do you even read the shit you reply to? Or do you stop after the first sentence? In my first paragraph it's stated clearly that it's a bad decision on Obama's part as well. I've also stated VERY clearly that I don't like the practice, no matter who does it. All I said in your quote it's that there's more than one president who made this same stupid decision. If DG's right, there are three. That doesn't excuse a single one of them from responsibility, but you can't throw it all onto the shoulders of one either.

So Laz, kindly begin reading the shit you quote.

~Morningfrost

**-Lazarus-** · 10-13-12, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

Do you even read the shit you reply to? Or do you stop after the first sentence? In my first paragraph it's stated clearly that it's a bad decision on Obama's part as well. I've also stated VERY clearly that I don't like the practice, no matter who does it. All I said in your quote it's that there's more than one president who made this same stupid decision. If DG's right, there are three. That doesn't excuse a single one of them from responsibility, but you can't throw it all onto the shoulders of one either.

So Laz, kindly begin reading the shit you quote.

~Morningfrost

Fuck you Frost. You have NO fucking reason to bring up George Bush except to try and somehow mitigate Obama's culpability. That is the point. I read your dumb assed comment before and this one too.

What George Bush did means exactly jack and shit with regard to this President and what he does, or with this election. You can't blame one without blaming the other - so what? It's IRRELEVANT.

I stand firmly by my original comment. Shut the hell up about Bush or anyone else who was President years ago when you are talking about bad decisions. Bush is not the President and he's not running for office.

I mean shit, why don't I just bring up Carter and how he fucked up with the Iran crisis and just say so you can't blame Obama for lying about Libya without blaming Carter for lying about the Iran hostages and the failed rescue... See? It's stupid.

**Morningfrost** · 10-13-12, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Fuck you Frost. You have NO fucking reason to bring up George Bush except to try and somehow mitigate Obama's culpability. That is the point. I read your dumb assed comment before and this one too.

What George Bush did means exactly jack and shit with regard to this President and what he does, or with this election. You can't blame one without blaming the other - so what? It's IRRELEVANT.

I stand firmly by my original comment. Shut the hell up about Bush or anyone else who was President years ago when you are talking about bad decisions. Bush is not the President and he's not running for office.

I mean shit, why don't I just bring up Carter and how he fucked up with the Iran crisis and just say so you can't blame Obama for lying about Libya without blaming Carter for lying about the Iran hostages and the failed rescue... See? It's stupid.

Wow Laz, way to twist everything I say. Once again, you'll see I make it a point to NOT excuse Obama for something I don't agree with (the private contractors). I say it many times. I brought up Bush because I thought the policy started under him, but from what DG says it started even earlier. So basically what that means is that while I don't blame Obama for all of it (because he didn't start the policy), he continued the policy and deserves his share of criticism for it.

Get off your fucking high horse.

~Morningfrost