• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Eric, Prince Of Blackwater

Status
Not open for further replies.
Time to start a Facebook group: Vern for CDS!

I, for one, am looking forward to her new dress regs - with assless chaps an optional addition to mess kit.



 
ArmyVern said:
I'll take it that you were very insulted then when our former CDS simply "told it like it is" and weren't one of the great many of us cheering him with a "finally, someone telling it like it is to all our fellow Canadians on the left wing porting their blinders every day."

Good point  :blotto:

No I wasn't insulted... yes I despise Talibans and their ideas... that being said, I think taxing your enemy, ANY enemy, with being sub-human/barbarian/retarded etc etc etc is a sliperry slope. And that coining these terms not too far from a candid brush at the Geneva conventions is even slipperier (?!? pushing the limits of my language skills...). While Prince's words were no doubt re-arranged to fil the leanings of the author, they sound to me like the words of someone justifying behaviour of dubious legality on the battlefied. And behaviour which seriously hampers our long-term objective over there.

Below 40: Classic example! Also included are things like mass incendiary bombing raids at night... on cities of no strategic values... AH, to be the victors... how much simpler!
 
I'll add to that that Taleban were/are murderous and certainly choice-candidates for the designation "scumbag"  ;D

However I think Prince is wrong when he says they're out of the sewer...not sure they have those over there.
 
While I think the Taliban are murdering scum who don't deserve the oxygen they are stealing from us, I rarely verbalize it, and when I do, I know my audience.
The descriptions I use are intended for those I trust. And I will not repeat them on here.
 
TimBit said:
I'll add to that that Taleban were/are murderous and certainly choice-candidates for the designation "scumbag"  ;D

However I think Prince is wrong when he says they're out of the sewer...not sure they have those over there.

Perhaps then, you think, I too should join Blackwater??

At least I read the "actual" question that the reporter "actually" asked him ... and that was NOT "What do you think of the Geneva Conventions?" It WAS rather:

(to paraphrase): "Aren't you worried that you may be considered an unlawful combattant and that you may not be "PROTECTED" by the Genenva conventions?" The very use of the word "protected by the conventions" means that the reporter was speaking in a context whereby the responder would be "captured by the enemy".

His response to the "actual" question asked? "(to paraphrase): "The Geneva Conventions are moot in this case because, even if I were covered by them, they are a bunch of murdering scumbags who wouldn't follow them anyway after capturing me."

You might not like that - but it's a fact that our opposition over there ... ignores the fact that we are covered by Geneva ... and rest assured your lil ole heart that they (our oh so nice enemies to put it in a more PC term for you) damn well know EXACTLY where Geneva is, that a convention was signed there, and that we are covered by them.

I get the sarcasm of his point - perhaps it was lost on you. That doesn't make me someone who "ignores those conventions" or a mercenary or someone who thinks the Conventions are el toro poo poo or that I'm someone who would NOT follow those Conventions.  It simply means that I am someone smart enough to realize that - if the Taliban, scumsucking murders that they are, catch MY ass .... they don't give a rats ass whether those conventions apply to me or not.

I'd prefer to walk in there with my eyes wide open - vice thinking that they'll treat me in a nice, delicate, and non-sexual manner "just because" Geneva is applicable to me. Welcome to reality.

 
Technoviking said:
In the early days of WW2, German U Boats would surface before their prey, have the crew abandon ship (eg: onto their boat) and then sink the ship by shooting the deck mounted 88mm at the waterline.  Soon, this became suicidal (for obvious reasons).  Still, U Boats regularly picked up the survivors.  Consider the "Laconia Incident"

The S.S. City of Benares, evacuating British children to Canada to escape the Blitz, did not receive a warning.
She was torpedoed in 1940. Two years before the Laconia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_City_of_Benares

"That the Germans themselves have no exaggerated regard for the area is proved by the fact that of the 38 ships referred to at least 16 were torpedoed outside the limits of the war zone." "The sinking of the City of Benares on the 17th September 1940 is a good example of this."

"The captain of the U-boat presumably did not know that there were children on board the City of Benares when he fired the torpedoes. Perhaps he did not even know the name of the ship, although there the evidence suggests strongly that he had been dogging her for several hours before torpedoing her. He must have known, however, that this was a large merchant ship, probably with civilian passengers on board, and certainly with a crew of merchant seamen. He knew the state of the weather, and he knew that they were six hundred miles from land, and yet he followed them outside the blockade area and deliberately abstained from firing his torpedo until after nightfall when the chances of rescue would be enormously reduced."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/05-11-46.asp

The "uboataces" link provided is included as one of the references to be considered regarding the Laconia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

Judgement at Nuremberg:
"In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on 8 May 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Chester Nimitz stating unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day of the Pacific War, the sentence of Dönitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp



 
" Prince said. He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces."

Can someone tell me why we would hire them to train our CF ?!?

Yes Talibans are killing our soldiers but so far we have fought with honnor and never we should slip lower then our enemy... I don't think the Canadian population would caution this.

After the Somalian incident, it took a lot of years to restore pride for our CF in the public eye. We shall not lose that again. Just look at what is going on in Parliament over the transfer of afghan prisoners. It's giving the CF a lot of bad press for nothing if you want my opinion on it.

So guys and girls keep doing the good job and walk out of there your head high and proud...

p.s. Read the book of General Hillier loved it !

Sophie
 
Bellesophie said:
" Prince said. He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces."

Can someone tell me why we would hire them to train our CF ?!?

Yes Talibans are killing our soldiers but so far we have fought with honnor and never we should slip lower then our enemy... I don't think the Canadian population would caution this.


After the Somalian incident, it took a lot of years to restore pride for our CF in the public eye. We shall not lose that again. Just look at what is going on in Parliament over the transfer of afghan prisoners. It's giving the CF a lot of bad press for nothing if you want my opinion on it.
So guys and girls keep doing the good job and walk out of there your head high and proud...

p.s. Read the book of General Hillier loved it !

Sophie

Good gawd, less drama please. That first question of yours has already been answered in this thread.

As for the yellow bit, it's not giving us in the CF bad press. What it is is the Liberal Party now swinging the policy on prisoner exchange that "their very own Liberal Party put into effect" (how wonderfully though that the average Canadian "forgets" that bit of fact) into a spin to make it look like the Tories did so ... a political power play aimed soley at gaining sympathetic votes from those who would forget the actual facts; nothing more and nothing less.

How ironic, the Liberals bitching at the Tories about the CF following a policy the Liberals made happen. Absolutely typical.
 
How ironic, the Liberals bitching at the Tories about the CF following a policy the Liberals made happen. Absolutely typical.

It would be just as typical the other way around... don`t be fooled, it`s party politics, not liberals.
 
TimBit said:
It would be just as typical the other way around... don`t be fooled, it`s party politics, not liberals.

I fully understand that.

In this case, I was speaking specificly to the incident referred to in the quote I posted. That is (this time) the Liberal party.
 
The fact that there has been some controversy with BW does not equal to Eric Prince being the enemy.

My personal belief is that the (successful?) demonetization of BW and Eric Prince means that The Enemy is winning.

We need, of course,  to remain critical and objective, never should we let the ends justify the means and let anyone (contractor or soldier) function outside of our "rules".

However, when someone is quoted out of context, we would be wise to ponder as to why the author needs to do so and re assess our frame of reference towards that issue.
 
Dissident said:
However, when someone is quoted out of context, we would be wise to ponder as to why the author needs to do so and re assess our frame of reference towards that issue.

Yep. Well said --- all of your post.
 
This is a very good thread.

I have a lot of respect for Erik Prince and Blackwater (or Xu). They have done some good things, and they're a generally effective organization. Of course, employees of Blackwater have also done some negative things, but I don't blame the organization any more than I blame the Canadian Forces for any of the negative things our staff has done.

It is also my opinion that these "private military corporations" are actually a good thing. Once the world gets used to them and once they become regulated, I feel that they can professionally and effectively remove some of the strain on our armed forces. Specifically in escorting and that sort of job that they could do without directly becoming a combat force.
 
mariomike said:
The S.S. City of Benares, evacuating British children to Canada to escape the Blitz, did not receive a warning.
She was torpedoed in 1940. Two years before the Laconia:
Oh, I know that the Deutschers were far from "saints" when it came to war at sea.  Just tried to show that they weren't the only ones playing "foul" out there.  That's all.
 
Technoviking said:
Oh, I know that the Deutschers were far from "saints" when it came to war at sea.  Just tried to show that they weren't the only ones playing "foul" out there.  That's all.

I completely agree with you.
 
recceguy said:
Everytime I read this thread title, I want to edit it and put a comma after Eric. Like something from Monty Python or Blackadder
I see you got your wish!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top