The Observation Deck

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:21 pm**

The recent Blackwater controversy in Iraq raises some questions.

Why are we paying these contractors big bucks to do security work in Iraq, when there are plenty of Iraqis willing to do it for a few hundred bucks a month? They could be paid in cash, without complicated pension and health benefits agreements.

Most people are more willing to accept necessary violence from their own group. That's how it is in America: If a small time goon is shot by a policeman of their own race there is usually less public outcry and news.

We have only to watch reruns of the American TV western past to see this is true. Festus got deputized on Gunsmoke all the time and got away with a lot of stuff. He worked for peanuts and lived in a shack. Iraq is a lot more crowded than the archtypical American frontier town, and most people there have very advanced language skills and conceptual thinking abilities. Other than that it is a lot the same.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:47 pm**

If there are all these Iraqis ready and willing to stand up and work toward the security of their country, why aren't they already earning a paycheck in the Iraqi army?

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:56 am**

First of all, couldn't the guy who started his mercenary firm "Blackwater" thought of a name that was LESS evil sounding? I mean, the name is completely awesome and if I ever wrote an action spy movie ala Bond, the bad guy would be working for Blackwater.

I think the bigger question for me isn't why they aren't hiring Iraqi's do to the job (if you have to ask, you don't get the joke...I think...) but how we could endorse a military operation that requires the hiring of mercenaries (high paid ones, at that) to do the job that should be done from within the military. The question might answer itself when one reads that the people working for Blackwater are accountable, apparently, to no one. They can't be tried in Iraqi courts (whose democracy is it?) but also can't be tried in US courts. This might change if Congress can bully a bill through the President's inevitable veto but I am not holding my breath.

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:50 am**

http://blackwatervictims.com/pics/Bridge.jpg

Blackwater victims

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:52 am**

http://www.darkworks.org/bodysmall1.jpg It does not come with out risk.

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:25 pm**

Stephen, I have edited your posts showing the images of mutilated corpses. I left the links for anyone who wishes to see them.

We state two things on each page of the Deck,

Do not copy and paste copy written materials, provide a link instead.

and

This forum is maintained, solely to provide an arena for discussion, without approval, editing or censorship by the Lakewood Observer.

The Observer does maintain the right to remove objectionable materials.

Of course, horrific images like the ones you posted should probably be seen by the general public, but I think people deserve a warning before choosing to view them. Because those images are important, the links to them remain.

I don't think it is appropriate to force people to view those images.

dl meckes

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:08 pm**

We state two things on each page of the Deck,

Do not copy and paste copy written materials, provide a link instead.

Did you check to see if these images were registered with US copyright office? :wink:

I did not see a watermark or logo on any of the photos that I posted. A watermark or logo usually indicates that the photos have been copyrighted( but not all of the time) If I remember correctly, several photographers captured these gruesome images. And I do not think that these images were captured by a US photographer. I did not copy any written material. I provided a copy of an image for non commercial use.

(edited)

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:09 pm**

Brian Pedaci wrote:If there are all these Iraqis ready and willing to stand up and work toward the security of their country, why aren't they already earning a paycheck in the Iraqi army?

Cuz the new Iraqi Army's job is to follow American rules until they get kidnapped or deaded up by insurgents or rebels.

Shoehorning Iraq into being a Democracy of the 21st century means a lot
of structural change. They're going to have to race through 200 years
of America's post 1776 development. That means a lot of Iraqis are
going to get deaded up.

The consolation is they'll get to check some ballot boxes a few times a
year. Like America's small government past they're going to need
sheriffs and deputies with little or no formal training. That is ok:
Iraqis have plenty of informal training. Like America's TV Western past
there will be a lot of casualties. Every goodguy on the TV Westerns of
the past killed at least 40 guys a year.

In the small government American Past that Ronald Reagan kept talking about, there were no real rules for hiring a sherrif or the cops or deputies. They could bust heads without going on administrative leave afterwards. But they were also pretty easy to fire.

So, like the NRA says for America, most Iraqis should have some handguns, and rifles at home. They'll sort themselves out much faster than we have been able to.

So you see, there's no need to contract out security jobs to
Americans being paid 20 to 150 grand a year. They don't
really know who to shoot, and take too much flak for doing it. Sure,
they get paid big bucks, and their company gets paid even more. But it
doesn't get anything done. Their boss ain't entitled to that money,
even if he was a Navy SEAL.

We can pay Iraqis a few hundred dollars a month to sort Iraq out. We
can pay them in cash. Or we can pay them in Corporate Colony Scrip,
redeemable at the new Iraqi Wal-marts and McDonalds of the 21st century.
They can get special badges so only they and their friends can shop
there at night, when it is less crowded.

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:56 pm**

Stephen Eisel wrote:I did not copy any written material. I provided a copy of an image for non commercial use.

I understand. You forgot the fair use/political speech argument as well.

I doubt, as you mention, that the photographer would come after the Observer for publishing the photos, because they were meant to be seen by as wide an audience as possible.

I ended my post with speech as plain as I could muster,

I think people deserve a warning before choosing to view them. Because those images are important, the links to them remain.

I don't think it is appropriate to force people to view those images.

dl meckes

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:24 pm**

I understand. You forgot the fair use/political speech argument as well.

I doubt, as you mention, that the photographer would come after the Observer for publishing the photos, because they were meant to be seen by as wide an audience as possible.

I ended my post with speech as plain as I could muster,

You silenced the fair speech argument by editing my post. You do not even know who the photographer was or if the photos are copyrighted? Correct?

I don't think it is appropriate to force people to view those images.

Thanks for setting the standard! :roll:

So what images are appropriate by your standards? What do you deem as proper material for this site? God forbid that we get an honest answer to a question with out offending you or anyone else... The question was (see below)

Why are we paying these contractors big bucks to do security work in Iraq

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:40 pm**

Anyone who wishes to can click on the links you provided.

Posted: **Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:25 pm**

Stephen Eisel wrote:

I don't think it is appropriate to force people to view those images.

Thanks for setting the standard! So what images are appropriate by your standards? What do you deem as proper material for this site? God forbid that we get an honest answer to a question with out offending you or anyone else... The question was (see below)

Stephen--
My only suggestion before displaying links on this forum would be as a courtesy. As in "the following may be graphic, or violent... or Hillary smiling."

Some warning as to what to expect if it starts to approach something you would not want to view while eating a sandwich. I don't think it needs rules or standards per se, just a Pepto meter. The above links were not informative for me. I don't know the context and therefore I'm left with shock value but little data. Did Blackwater do this? I've seen as bad or worse from the terrorists. Remember Somalia? There are so many samples it would fill a web site.

Honestly Stephen, I got no censorship vibe from DL at all--and her post was very clear. I think you may have been reading into it more than it was. Just a little warning would help people want to click through--or possibly not, if they are snacking. Otherwise it can become a weird lottery of surprises, and we all have enough of that in real life
Just sayin'

.

Posted: **Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:33 pm**

Do not copy and paste copy written materials, provide a link instead.

and

This forum is maintained, solely to provide an arena for discussion, without approval, editing or censorship by the Lakewood Observer.

I had to put my boots on to read this post...

Posted: **Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:23 pm**

Stephen Eisel wrote:
Do not copy and paste copy written materials, provide a link instead.

and

This forum is maintained, solely to provide an arena for discussion, without approval, editing or censorship by the Lakewood Observer.
I had to put my boots on to read this post...

Yeah, yeah--but the boots are kind of dramatic.

I don't know who pays for the servers to be maintained on this site. I know it's provided "as is" and not something that can- or should be taken for granted. So anybody including myself who has a problem with it on any holy grounds of censorship or freedom of speech is misplacing the argument. It could shut down tomorrow and that argument would go with it.
Get real.
Please reconsider whatever hard line you are making against something that doesn't manifest itself (other than courtesy). I don't think that anything this site or it's administration has stated has been excessive. Certainly not DL.

Until we are collectively paying for this virtual place, terms of service are just not that big of a deal. Is that really so hard to work with?

.

Posted: **Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:02 pm**

Dustin James wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:
Do not copy and paste copy written materials, provide a link instead.

and

This forum is maintained, solely to provide an arena for discussion, without approval, editing or censorship by the Lakewood Observer.
I had to put my boots on to read this post...

Yeah, yeah--but the boots are kind of dramatic.

I don't know who pays for the servers to be maintained on this site. I know it's provided "as is" and not something that can- or should be taken for granted. So anybody including myself who has a problem with it on any holy grounds of censorship or freedom of speech is misplacing the argument. It could shut down tomorrow and that argument would go with it.
Get real.
Please reconsider whatever hard line you are making against something that doesn't manifest itself (other than courtesy). I don't think that anything this site or it's administration has stated has been excessive. Certainly not DL.

Until we are collectively paying for this virtual place, terms of service are just not that big of a deal. Is that really so hard to work with?

.

Are you representing Jim and the LO when you talk about the limiting of free speech on this board?

The argument was about copyrighted material. The images were not copyrighted nor were they taken by an American photographer. I did not copy or paste any written material.

DL Meckes wrote: Do not copy and paste copy written materials, provide a link instead.

and

The Observation Deck

everyone loves contracting

everyone loves contracting

yeah