Blackwater for Darfur. Would you support this?

[Moonbeam]

I would send the military, but if the only choice was Blackwater, so be it.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski
Look, certainly State Militaries have killed more than Mercs, no question about that, but that's not the point. Mercs, especially large organizations like BW Need $$. They are a Business and they make their $$ through Conflict, they Need Conflict. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see where the problem lies in that. State Militaries don't Need Conflict.

Potential problem with mercenaries in general, which to date has not been a problem.

I will also concede that the UN is slow, but their ROE are there for a reason and short cutting those with Mercs is just a bad idea.

Except in the examples in this thread.

Remember the problems in Iraq with Mercs?

Remember it with the troops? Naked pyramids anybody?

If the Nations can't find it in their interest to fight these conflicts, maybe these conflicts are not worth Fighting?

No, it is worth fighting people who like to rape women and then for a game take bets on what the fetus' sex is, then hack it out to see who won, or groups who keep their ranks filled by stealing 12 year old boys and ensuring they'll never run away because they made that boy rape his mom then shoot the rest of his family.

Besides, who is going to be willing to pay the UN or some other Organization to go around fighting these Conflicts with Mercs?

UN has plenty of money. It just wastes a lot of it.

No military organization is going to be perfect, however, I do think there is more accountability, even years after the fact, with national military forces than there is with private corporations.

As for Darfur itself, there are a whole mess of issues which prevent NATO or the UN from acting. The Sudanese government is a large weapons buyer, most of their purchases are from Russian firms. The oil that lies below Sudan (albeit, not much) has been 'claimed' by China. Both of these countries sit on the UN Security Council and possess veto power. Hence, sending UN troops in is almost politically impossible. NATO can't be deployed because both China and Russia would see it as a threat to their national interests.

Now, I don't really believe that Russia or China would go to war over US-led or backed intervention in Darfur, however it would further sour relations at an already tense point. Remember, Russia is not happy with the US for its expansion of NATO and it's recent military actions. China is upset over the economic slowdown and continually clashes with the US over trade agreements.

Private companies, like Blackwater, don't really solve many of these problems.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: feralkid
"Reopened"?

Hell, junior, I started it!

I also worked for Hitler's Dad's boss and invented Chemical Warfare.


:laugh:

You said I've given up arguing with fools like these. Now please be true to your word; the adults are talking; go troll elsewhere.

Take a pill, Skoorb.

This is a forum for opinions, I gave mine.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: feralkid
"Reopened"?

Hell, junior, I started it!

I also worked for Hitler's Dad's boss and invented Chemical Warfare.


:laugh:

You said I've given up arguing with fools like these. Now please be true to your word; the adults are talking; go troll elsewhere.

Take a pill, Skoorb.

This is a forum for opinions, I gave mine.

You make Skoorby sad

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: feralkid
"Reopened"?

Hell, junior, I started it!

I also worked for Hitler's Dad's boss and invented Chemical Warfare.


:laugh:

You said I've given up arguing with fools like these. Now please be true to your word; the adults are talking; go troll elsewhere.

Take a pill, Skoorb.

This is a forum for opinions, I gave mine.

You make Skoorby sad

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to get personal.

2

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: feralkid
"Reopened"?

Hell, junior, I started it!

I also worked for Hitler's Dad's boss and invented Chemical Warfare.


:laugh:

You said I've given up arguing with fools like these. Now please be true to your word; the adults are talking; go troll elsewhere.

Take a pill, Skoorb.

This is a forum for opinions, I gave mine.

You make Skoorby sad

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to get personal.

2

I hate it when we fight :heart:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: sandorski
Look, certainly State Militaries have killed more than Mercs, no question about that, but that's not the point. Mercs, especially large organizations like BW Need $$. They are a Business and they make their $$ through Conflict, they Need Conflict. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see where the problem lies in that. State Militaries don't Need Conflict.

I will also concede that the UN is slow, but their ROE are there for a reason and short cutting those with Mercs is just a bad idea. Remember the problems in Iraq with Mercs? The last thing we need is a large Industry of poorly regulated Mercs running around the globe because they are convenient. If the Nations can't find it in their interest to fight these conflicts, maybe these conflicts are not worth Fighting? Besides, who is going to be willing to pay the UN or some other Organization to go around fighting these Conflicts with Mercs?

Except the UN is able to cease the activities of mercs with a simple word because they are still backed by the power of Russian, Chinese and American forces.

Unless you think that conflict is dying off and will become obsolete soon I don't see how you can make the correlation between conflicts and mercenaries.

Mercenaries groups have been active around the globe all century, only recently have they come to light because of Iraq (The 4 contractors hung, the shooting of civilians) but even so who is to say they have any more issues than State sponsored militaries (Phosphor bombs in civilian areas, shooting cars of civilians that don't stop, the massacres in Vietnam.)

It would seem as far as warfare goes mercenaries would be preferred for small scale conflicts due to the nature of the same mistakes being made by State sponsored armies, yet with Mercenaries the penalties can be greater (killed by State sponsored armies, loss of contracts and business)

Conflict will be around for a longtime to come, but you're just setting yourself up to be involved in every single one if you go the Mercenary route.

Thank you, sandorski for posting.

The fundamental ignorance of some people regarding global conflict is absolutely astounding.

Thank God they are mostly in academic circle jerks for now, but this kind of moral bankruptcy may well spill into the general population given the ignorance these posters demonstrate.

I've given up arguing with fools like these; hence I thank you for giving it a try.

:thumbsup:

Ignorance in regards too?

Or are you going to sit there in your all high and mighty chair and troll with no actual opinion. You are right though, for right now the majority of people favoring this are in academic circles only as we progress through the networking phase, but you are ignorant of how the world works if you don't think people in academics with ambition can influence political decisions as time goes on, especially ones whose groundwork, such as this, has been laid.

So what exactly is wrong with this idea or did you just want to jump on the anti-war groups bandwagon and ride it all night without considering how pathetic a head i the sand approach is?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
It pisses me off that the UN doesn't intervene and take charge in Darfur. Isn't that one of their mandates? If not, why the hell do they even exist and why are we pouring millions upon millions of dollars into it?
The US does NOT need to get involved in Darfur or any other Country's conflicts/situations in any other capacity other than as a member of the UN. The US can't afford to be the policeman of the world anymore ..... we have to rethink that notion. Where the fuck are the rest of the worlds armies and support? Come on France ...... Germany ...... Italy ..... Russia ....... chip in and give a shit so we don't have to spend our lives and treasure doing what is right. WHY ARE WE THE ONLY ONES???

The UN is the 'All Israel All The Time" agency and being staffed by over 1/3 Muslim states, who's religion effects everything, has little incentive to follow-up on their spiritual brothers doing genocide in Darfur.

 

[Oceandevi]

In a perfect world this would work perfectly. However...

 

[squirrel dog]

Give a man a fish,he eats for one day.Teach him how to fish ............

 

[Mani]

PMCs in general are a scary concept. I suppose I'd be ok with it though if there were no viable alternative.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
Give a man a fish,he eats for one day.Teach him how to fish ............

Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for one day. Light him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[cirrrocco]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: cirrrocco
we should also send blackwater to clean up the corruption in chicago and also to police parts of mexico where many people try to come into the us.

Why post if its just useless dribble? If you have no opinion on the topic at hand why bother posting at all? I'm sure you can make a new thread if you want to discuss Chicago politics. Christ P&N has turned into nothing but a "thread, cheap retort, pathetic retort, cheap retort" since The election cycle started.
.......

Well the useless dribble was posted because I think the idea you broached is useless as well. I also was interested in responding in kind.

 

[cwjerome]

I'm not the biggest fan of Blackwater. As a side note, I know one person who joined BW and one person who declined after being asked.

I think private security has a role in this world, but it should be in small doses in narrow situations. Sierra Leone aside, careful attention should be paid to how large and involved their operations become to a state-sponsored mission.

 

[palehorse]

Accountability will come, as it does everywhere else, in the form of CNN watching every single thing they do.

Sounds like a decent enough idea to me.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Accountability will come, as it does everywhere else, in the form of CNN watching every single thing they do.

Sounds like a decent enough idea to me.

Good to hear from your planet, where there hasn't been any skyrocketing government secrecy.

The last thing we need is to increase a privatized military infrastructure.

Letting politicians have even more available, less accountable military forces is like giving kids matches and guns, except that kids might not misuse them.

Oh, by the way - that CNN law enfocrment power has been quite effective over the illegal wiretapping, the illegal torture and more.

The Senate just reported on how the senior Bush officials are responsible for approving torture, that CNN couldn't even bother to mention, much less police:

Read this link

There are countless other episodes like this of human beings in American custody dying because of the mistreatment -- authorized by Bush, Rumsfeld and others -- to which we subjected them. These are murders and war crimes in every sense of the word. That the highest level Bush officials and the President himself are responsible for the policies that spawned these crimes against humanity have been long known to anyone paying minimal attention, but now we have a bipartisan Senate Report -- signed by the presidential nominee of Bush's own political party -- that directly assigns culpability for these war crimes to the President and his policies. It's nothing less than a formal declaration from the Senate that the President and his top aides are war criminals.

* * * * *

This Report was issued on Thursday. Not a single mention was made of it on any of the Sunday news talk shows, with the sole exception being when John McCain told George Stephanopoulos that it was "not his job" to opine on whether criminal prosecutions were warranted for the Bush officials whose policies led to these crimes. What really matters, explained McCain, was not that we get caught up in the past, but instead, that we ensure this never happens again -- yet, like everyone else who makes this argument, he offered no explanation as to how we could possibly ensure that "it never happens again" if we simultaneously announce that our political leaders will be immunized, not prosecuted, when they commit war crimes. Doesn't that mindset, rather obviously, substantially increase the likelihood -- if not render inevitable -- that such behavior will occur again? Other than that brief exchange, this Senate Report was a non-entity on the Sunday shows.

Instead, TV pundits were consumed with righteous anger over the petty, titillating, sleazy Rod Blagojevich scandal, competing with one another over who could spew the most derision and scorn for this pitiful, lowly, broken individual and his brazen though relatively inconsequential crimes. Every exciting detail was vouyeristically and meticulously dissected by political pundits -- many, if not most, of whom have never bothered to acquaint themselves with any of the basic facts surrounding the monumental Bush lawbreaking and war crimes scandals. TV "journalists" who have never even heard of the Taguba report -- the incredible indictment issued by a former U.S. General, who subsequently observed: "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account" -- spent the weekend opining on the intricacies of Blogojevich's hair and terribly upsetting propensity to use curse words.