This interview was apparently done over a month ago and was not published until 11/28/16. There are problems with the sound.
Hmm?
The year before last I spoke with a fellow that works for the company that Black Water turned into and he was very positive about the personal qualities of Erik Prince. This interview shows the man he spoke of rather than the scheming goon I read about in the book Blackwater.
However, something about this stinks to me.
When did Molyneux, atheist, libertarian, antiwar crusader become an apologist for global war?
Did some guy in a black suit and sunglasses show up in Toronto with a suitcase full of money?
The term “anti-war left” is kind of creepy after eight years of leftist warmongering out of the O-Sauron administration.
The claim that the U.S. has been bombing Kurdish civilians is fascinating.
The Taliban control more of Afghanistan now than before the U.S. went in and America is still spending forty-some billion there?
No wonder Heroin in the states is still so cheap.
Thriving in Bad Places
He didn't answer about Blackwater having less restrictions than the military. My understanding is they had less.
He mentioned his tooth to tail as 8 to1 as compared to 12 to 1 for the military. I noticed his resupply mission mentioned just before this he didn't say who maintained the choppers. With the personal he had I'm not so sure he could have done that. What if he counted all the guys who had to be called in to maintain the choppers? I don't hate him, far fro it, but I'm not so big on outsourcing of military task. His army supply mission does make a good case for it or that the Air Force lose their resupply mission if they won't do it.
He said he was forced out of business. Had to sell. Who bought? Hmmm...Investment bankers. Jews! So next time the Jews tell you that if you don't like what they're doing, why don't you start your own business. This is one reason why. Whites start businesses and then the Jews manipulate to system to drive you out and steal it for pennies on the dollar. I'm guessing he was getting to much power.
His sister is in the Trump administration. Hopefully his sister and Erik will provide Trump some good advice as compared to the worthless advice he will get from his evil Son in Law. It's not likely though. They always have some Col. House figure slinking about our government.
We should get out of the Empire business.
Even though Erik seems like a class guy and is no doubt subject to a stricter code of morality than most of us, he has spent decades in "the empire business" which means he is very likely to have been involved in perpetuating evil on a global scale. This is an ages old dilemma for the elite warrior class—they will be called upon by their masters to do something rotten.
I had a discussion with one of his former operatives who told me that the company that Prince founded and sold is all over Africa. This guy—a super polite Christian family man—spends half his time in Africa. There are apparently a lot of counter insurgency programs on-going on the dark continent that are not of interest to the media.
I'm certain Himmler and Goebbels were perfectly charming people in polite company. I expect Prince would have fit right in... How long since Prince left the states because of (more than one?) murder investigation had been initiated? No point in behaving himself under the circumstance I suppose, he just keeps on keeping on, here's what he appears to have been up more recently:
theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation
and a bit of the older shit:
thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder
I used to work for a firearms accessories company. By virtue of the product line, we got orders from numerous private contractors, all of whom were pleasant and easy to deal with. Because of a merchandising deal we had with Blackwater, we got some of the emails they sent out to their employees. One time, we got a list of the rules of conduct for PMC's in theater. I don't remember the whole list but, I remember two that stuck out; 1) We will ALWAYS go when the military calls for assistance, no exceptions. 2) When socializing with service members in The Green Zone, you WILL NOT let them pay for anything. One of our employees makes approximately 13 times what an enlisted E6 makes, so you will pay for EVERYTHING, be it food, drinks, or entertainment.
They always seemed like a class act until the requirements overwhelmed the available personnel. Then, they had to take what they could get and the result was sub-optimal.
I reread what I wrote about Prince and want to clarify. I'm mostly on his side. I'm impressed with him. He came from a wealthy background and joined the seals. Virtually no rich people, and his family was big time rich, joins the military. He's said and I've seen no reports that can oppose this, that he did so for patriotism.
I'm really not for military contractors because even if he was a good guy eventually it always ends up being mercenary armies that ruin Republics. No criticism of him personally just the way history works.
If you believe, like I do, that the Jews run a most of the foreign policy of the US you can easily see why they would move hell and high water to try to attack him in whatever way possible. Here's a patriotic, wealthy, warfighter who they can't control. Has a lot of inside information and strong ties to the military and especially the more spooky branches. They have to do whatever possible to neutralize him and they did.
They did the same thing to Ted Turner and CNN. Told him a bunch of lies. Reeled his company in, moved him out then ripped him off so he lost massive amounts of wealth.
So all this business about him being some rouge warrior is bullshit. I'll bet anyone who was killed by his Men was directly due to the federal governments request or in the duty of guarding US gov. officials.
They were highly aggressive in guarding their State dept. officials. Many times they shot up peoples cars when they got too close. They also had a huge firefight when they thought they were being ambushed. The upside of this is they never lost any officials which is the whole point and why they kept their contracts.
Sam J. is correct about Blackwater's tight relationship with the State department. Flaming Leftists though most of the career diplomats in the State department are, the ones I spoke with in Iraq appreciated the fact that the Blackwater operators would risk their own lives to protect their charges. The diplomats were confident the Blackwater operators would fight ruthlessly and decisively to keep their civilian charges from falling into enemy hands, since they HAD done so. They NEVER lost any U.S. officials. Even in circumstances where other PMCs threw up their hands and surrendered their charges. Nevertheless that steadfast loyalty earned Blackwater NO love at all from the Leftist community at large. Leftists hate all soldiers; they regard them as just jingoist myrmidons who would commit any atrocity at the orders of their superiors. The soldiers who belong to their nation’s military can be excused to a certain degree because they are motivated by a misguided sense of patriotism and nationalism. However, a “mercenary”, someone who would fight for money alone, must truly be evil! Hence any story you can concoct about the atrocities they commit is likely to be true, if unconfirmed. Just like with the police, right? The dirty little secret is that the USA needed twice as many soldiers as it had to occupy Iraq (GEN Shinseki was right about needing 250,000 troops or roughly half the US Army at the time).Fighting an insurgency is much more manpower (infantry intensive) than fighting a conventional blitzkrieg type war because there are so many people and places that must be protected from insurgent attacks. So the only way to get the troops they needed with the appropriate skill sets was to hire Private Military Contractors (PMC). Starting up a draft would have been political suicide, which is why the Democrats tried to talk W. Bush into doing it, like they talked Old George into supporting a tax raise. PMCs were actually cheaper in the long run, regardless of their high salaries compared to military personnel, since the government didn’t have to care for their families, pay for all the various and sundry “title ten” support for troops on active duty or owe them VA benefits for the rest of their lives post-employment. Yes, historically mercenaries have been a threat to their employers. As Machiavelli observed, mercenaries often find it easier to rob the paymaster than to fight the battle. The Italian “Condotteri” (contractors) of the 14th - 16th Centuries were notorious for this, which made honest and reliable mercenaries like the Swiss rare jewels much sought after. It is also true that the U.S. Military has made use of civilian contractors for most of its history. Like scouts, teamsters, storekeepers, mechanics, privateer and cargo ships during the frontier days and technicians and construction contractors (like the ones on Wake Island at the start of WWII). It been the rule more than the exception. However, during World War II, and throughout the post WWII period up to 1973, when the USA maintained military conscription, it found it cheaper and easier to draft the expertise it needed into the military. Now with an all-volunteer military like in the pre-WWI past, it’s much less expensive and much more politically supportable for the U.S. government to hire civilian contractors whenever it needs extra technical, intelligence, logistic or security “temp” help for an indeterminate period of time.
Jeremy Bentham,"...GEN Shinseki was right about needing 250,000 troops or roughly half the US Army at the time..."
Jeremy is hot on the root of the matter. We don't have enough troops to occupy countries. Especially two countries. There's nothing wrong with our troops (negating that they fight 2nd gen. warfare instead of 4th gen. warfare), there's nothing wrong with the equipment negating there's always room for improvement) we just don't have the boots on the group to "civilly" (means not taking out half a village after a shot came from it and hanging them) control populations. I did a quick search and the US had 1,430,985 troops TOTAL. With a tooth to tail of 12 to 1 we get 119,248. That's probably only if you gave all the cooks rifles and what they don't tell you is it's even worse because 33% are in the field, 33% are refitting and 30% are training to go back to the field. So we really only have 39,749 to run two whole countries. Maybe my number is low but any higher and you're pushing the troops to exhaustion. You can't keep up full time combat tempo. It can't be done. The British ran countries by getting one of the sects/races/tribes to be the constabulary and their troops only wandered around and when needed combined to a force to hit the hot spots. We should make a rule that we're not going to invade and take over and run any countries. We should only blast the hell out of the rulers and then leave if a country causes us problems. Just as effective if you want compliance.