Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (86375)	4/13/2004 12:20:16 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

What I'm saying is, if service to our country was always "safe", we wouldn't need the Scott Helvestons of the world to provide it.

To: SiouxPal who wrote (86375)	4/13/2004 5:44:01 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Blackwater, by its mission and nature, goes into dangerous areas. That what their consulting service is all about. So, it's not at all feasible nor obligatory for the US govt. to "provide" a "safe situation" for a private contractor of such nature. If it were safe, Blackwater wouldn't go there. It's not in their business plan. That's what Scott signed up for. Pinning Scott's tragedy on Bush is just silly. If all Blackwater did was go to Iowa for picnics, Scott wouldn't have signed up for it. There's no political drama necessary for a man following his own determination to help people in dangerous situations. That's what makes Scott a hero. Let him rest as a hero and don't play political parlour games with his memory. "We did not present a situation where he could safely give his love and service for his country."