Founder of Blackwater

http://news.yahoo.com/blackwater-founder-could-stop-isis-025500172--politics.html

Cost more for him to do it than doing it ourselves

On top of that he will use means and methods you pantywaists won't like to get the job done.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:On top of that he will use means and methods you pantywaists won't like to get the job done.

ROE only apply in a soft war. A soft war is when you sacrifice your men instead of the enemy!

I have no doubt Mr. Price could get
The job done. Obama won't let him annihilate his fellow Muslims though.

Prince

This Erik Prince?

http://www.newser.com/tag/13596/1/erik-prince.html



http://www.newser.com/story/118593/blackwater-founder-eric-prince-forms-secret-army-for-the-uae.html



Blackwater Founder Forms Secret Army for UAE


$529M FORCE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS, SUPPRESSING REVOLT

By Mark Russell,  Newser Staff
Posted May 15, 2011 5:55 AM CDT


(NEWSER) – At a military complex amid the sands of the United Arab Emirates, Blackwater founder Erik Prince has set up a hundreds-member-strong, $529-million private army designed to suppress internal revolts, protect high-rises and oil infrastructure from terrorist attack, and conduct special operations both in and out of the UAE, reports the New York Times. This private militia, housed in a base about 20 miles from Abu Dhabi, features soldiers from Colombia, South Africa, and other countries, and retired American, British, German, and French soldiers as instructors—but it also has a strict no-Muslim rule, as Prince reportedly believes Muslims cannot be trusted to kill other Muslims.

Prince's name rarely appears on documents associated with his new company, and he is referred to by the code name "Kingfish." But the Times spoke with five sources who confirmed his pivotal role. The crown prince of Abu Dhabi reportedly hired Prince to assemble the 800-member battalion (a number that his since been reduced to 580), which costs $9 million a month to run. Although some analysts consider the private military force to be potentially destabilizing, and say any Americans training the troops could be breaking federal law, it has some support in Washington, as the UAE is a US ally and fiercely hostile to Iran. “The gulf countries, and the UAE in particular, don’t have a lot of military experience. It would make sense if they looked outside their borders for help,” said an Obama administration official. One Colombian mercenary who arrived in the UAE last summer and has since left the group describes 5am wakeups, luxuries (a chef hired from Colombia to make traditional soups), and secrecy. “We were only allowed outside for our morning jog, and all we could see was sand everywhere.” Click to read the piece in its entirety.

Yep!

Floridatexan wrote:This Erik Prince?

http://www.newser.com/tag/13596/1/erik-prince.html



http://www.newser.com/story/118593/blackwater-founder-eric-prince-forms-secret-army-for-the-uae.html



Blackwater Founder Forms Secret Army for UAE


$529M FORCE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS, SUPPRESSING REVOLT

By Mark Russell,  Newser Staff
Posted May 15, 2011 5:55 AM CDT


(NEWSER) – At a military complex amid the sands of the United Arab Emirates, Blackwater founder Erik Prince has set up a hundreds-member-strong, $529-million private army designed to suppress internal revolts, protect high-rises and oil infrastructure from terrorist attack, and conduct special operations both in and out of the UAE, reports the New York Times. This private militia, housed in a base about 20 miles from Abu Dhabi, features soldiers from Colombia, South Africa, and other countries, and retired American, British, German, and French soldiers as instructors—but it also has a strict no-Muslim rule, as Prince reportedly believes Muslims cannot be trusted to kill other Muslims.

Prince's name rarely appears on documents associated with his new company, and he is referred to by the code name "Kingfish." But the Times spoke with five sources who confirmed his pivotal role. The crown prince of Abu Dhabi reportedly hired Prince to assemble the 800-member battalion (a number that his since been reduced to 580), which costs $9 million a month to run. Although some analysts consider the private military force to be potentially destabilizing, and say any Americans training the troops could be breaking federal law, it has some support in Washington, as the UAE is a US ally and fiercely hostile to Iran. “The gulf countries, and the UAE in particular, don’t have a lot of military experience. It would make sense if they looked outside their borders for help,” said an Obama administration official. One Colombian mercenary who arrived in the UAE last summer and has since left the group describes 5am wakeups, luxuries (a chef hired from Colombia to make traditional soups), and secrecy. “We were only allowed outside for our morning jog, and all we could see was sand everywhere.” Click to read the piece in its entirety.

True patriot.

Don't hate that he is successful and u r not

He has more patriotism in his little toe than in your whole body

PACEDOG#1 wrote:He has more patriotism in his little toe than in your whole body

You are a raging lunatic.

Hardly.

This link belongs here, too. So you right-wing loons can get a grip. This man is no patriot. He talks a good story...full of "Christian values". He "grew" his company on the largesse of the Bush administration war machine. He's a MERCENARY...for sale to the highest bidder.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/blackwater-201001

Floridatexan wrote:
This link belongs here, too.  So you right-wing loons can get a grip.  This man is no patriot.  He talks a good story...full of "Christian values".  He "grew" his company on the largesse of the Bush administration war machine.  He's a MERCENARY...for sale to the highest bidder.  

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/blackwater-201001

You are the looney one.......what did you think he did?  Furthermore, if you don't believe we have had paid assasins for upteen years you are really really dumb.

Does that make it right?

Floridatexan wrote:
Does that make it right?

Depends on the circumstances.....so to answer your question, yes.

So, in your mind, a country that didn't attack us deserved to be attacked by us and that battle should have used any means necessary to advance our goals, including the slaughter of innocent civilians by a private mercenary force. I get it. I just don't think you do.

Floridatexan wrote:
So, in your mind, a country that didn't attack us deserved to be attacked by us and that battle should have used any means necessary to advance our goals, including the slaughter of innocent civilians by a private mercenary force.  I get it.  I just don't think you do.

Those are your words not mine.  I'm beginning to think you really don't have a clue.

The U.S. has and has always had assasination lists to advance our position and goals.  Look up Disposition Matrix.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Floridatexan wrote:
So, in your mind, a country that didn't attack us deserved to be attacked by us and that battle should have used any means necessary to advance our goals, including the slaughter of innocent civilians by a private mercenary force.  I get it.  I just don't think you do.

WMDs (that did exist and we found in numerous stockpiles), threatening his neighbors, shooting at our aircraft in the no-fly zone, attempted assassination of Bush 41, violation of every UN security agreement ever made against him.....need more be said???

There's a whole lot more to that story, and you're flat-out lying about WMD's.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm

Published on
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
by the Minneapolis City Pages

The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism

"...2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.

Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."..."

Floridatexan wrote:
There's a whole lot more to that story, and you're flat-out lying about WMD's.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm

Published on
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
by the Minneapolis City Pages

The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism

"...2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.

Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."..."

Sunday, August 14, 2005



BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.


Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.

Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ ... pstoryview

Why do you have chem weapons suits in your possession unless you are contemplating using said weapons against the enemy?