• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US 'to drop Blackwater in Iraq'

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
2,283
Location
Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BBC NEWS | Americas | US 'to drop Blackwater in Iraq'

Blackwater should be dropped as the main private security contractor for US diplomats in Iraq, a US State Department panel has recommended.

On the one hand I think this is great, on the other I think it might be a ploy to prevent the Democrats from examining Blackwater when they get into power.
 
BBC NEWS | Americas | US 'to drop Blackwater in Iraq'

Blackwater should be dropped as the main private security contractor for US diplomats in Iraq, a US State Department panel has recommended.

On the one hand I think this is great, on the other I think it might be a ploy to prevent the Democrats from examining Blackwater when they get into power.

First, the US is not "to drop Blackwater in Iraq." It is merely the recommendation of a State Dept panel.

Second, how would removing Blackwater as a primary security contractor in Iraq prevent Congress from reviewing their performance in Iraq?

:roll:
 
I think the assumption is that the State Department is the primary actor here.

You make a good point though, who exactly makes that decision specifically?

If Blackwater was axed it'd be easier for Republicans to charge Democrats with "partisan witch-hunting" for exploring the relationship between the company and Bush officials because Blackwater would no longer be immediately relevant.
 
I think the assumption is that the State Department is the primary actor here.

But you took a recommendation for removing Blackwater and treated it as though the decision had been made. That's what I was correcting.

You make a good point though, who exactly makes that decision specifically?

Don't know.

If Blackwater was axed it'd be easier for Republicans to charge Democrats with "partisan witch-hunting" for exploring the relationship between the company and Bush officials because Blackwater would no longer be immediately relevant.

Well, if the investigation was into some supposed corrupt relationship between Bush officials and Blackwater then I might agree. But any investigation would be well within Congress's oversight responsibilities.

This is a non-issue.
 
First of all, I didn't write that article, BBC did.

And yes, the investigation will be between a corrupt Bush official and Blackwater.

I know you didn't write the article. You did write the title. BBC wrote that a panel recommended that Blackwater be removed. Your title, though, said that the US was to drop Blackwater. Of course, a recommendation to do something is not actually doing it.
 
Mea culpa. I suck. My apologies.
 
It's gonna get interesting when Obama takes office on how he's going to unleash the dogs on these types of investigantions or not.

YouTube - Release the dogs
stumps_for_oil.jpg
 
Are they considering dropping the use of all mercenaries or just blackwater?

Actually users of DP are forbidden from writing their own titles for news articles. Our thread title has to be the same as the articles title.

Which it is.

Just to clarify (because at least one user was unaware) this only applies to the Breaking News section, where a thread title must match the title of the article it's based on. In other sections you can use whatever title you want
 
Back
Top Bottom