Blackwater for Darfur. Would you support this?

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I think money, the ability to do a job you enjoy (This be the application of lethal force) combined with the real knowledge that you are allowed to live as long as you do not threaten the security of the United States of America or any other super power can be a strong leash on an otherwise chaotic profession.

At least for now it appears to be. We're well aware of the cowboyism of groups like Blackwater, but these are not true mercs in the classic sense and do have more than simply money to be aware of, such as international law. A company based in the US is not going to sell its mercs to North Korea and if a company engages in terrible acts it will be blacklisted and unable to get business.

Not to mention, an African or Russian based PMF will not engage in activities that would undermine Russian, Israel or American interest due to the knowledge of the available resources those countries have.

I personally think that PMF and PMC are good organizations to bypass the UN's pathetic ROE that seem to strangle any mission (Rwanda) that it takes over.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

 

[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???

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Who exactly do you think they are going to attack that scares you so much? And do you think when govts around the world deploy their military it is for noble causes? That last line is rather amusing.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Like I said, these companies are not going to work for any dictatorial gov, they have reputations, and those that don't and work for anybody you cannot do anything about anyway.

Let's put aside conjecture and look at actual history. The examples mentioned in this thread, such as Sierra Leone and, the wiki link speaks of Angola, are two examples where a PMC has done very well. We all know how pitiful the UN was in Rwanda, is now in Darfur, and basically anywhere else it has sat around eating MREs and masturbating.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Who exactly do you think they are going to attack that scares you so much? And do you think when govts around the world deploy their military it is for noble causes? That last line is rather amusing.

It's not a matter of being "scared" it's just common sense. Guns for Hire can be hired by anyone with the Cash and as such are simply a danger. For a very long time Mercs have been a small group on the fringe of existence, the establishment of BW and others is just a bad thing in the longrun.

Glad you're amused, but clearly National Militaries are Motivated and Controlled much better than Mercs.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Like I said, these companies are not going to work for any dictatorial gov, they have reputations, and those that don't and work for anybody you cannot do anything about anyway.

Let's put aside conjecture and look at actual history. The examples mentioned in this thread, such as Sierra Leone and, the wiki link speaks of Angola, are two examples where a PMC has done very well. We all know how pitiful the UN was in Rwanda, is now in Darfur, and basically anywhere else it has sat around eating MREs and masturbating.

You can say that all you want, but that's just you saying it. There are examples of Al Queda, Hitler, and if I dug I could probably find Stalin doing Good or even Great things that were beneficial. It's Moot that they occassionally have done positive things, their Motivation is $$, not Charity.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Who exactly do you think they are going to attack that scares you so much? And do you think when govts around the world deploy their military it is for noble causes? That last line is rather amusing.

It's not a matter of being "scared" it's just common sense. Guns for Hire can be hired by anyone with the Cash and as such are simply a danger. For a very long time Mercs have been a small group on the fringe of existence, the establishment of BW and others is just a bad thing in the longrun.

Glad you're amused, but clearly National Militaries are Motivated and Controlled much better than Mercs.

If that was the case we would have not had two world wars in the last 100 years.

The militaries of states I would wager a bet are responsible for more bloodshed than mercenaries groups over the centuries.

There are really only a few type of people who fight, ones who fight for the flag, these belong to state militaries and are restricted by rules of engagement and politics and public opinion. We can't send out spec ops teams to take care of business in certain areas as it might be bad publicly if they fail.

There are people who are forced to fight, these are also pretty useless as far as many armies go as we saw with Vietnam (no disrespect to Viet vets) who had no real motivator besides staying out of jail.

Than we have people who fight for money and because they have been trained as soldiers, served a country (for the flag) and after seeing the shit the military does decide to get a paycheck (which they got in the military as well) for doing the same job, with less restraints.

Your theory of loyalty following just the money is a good theory and on the surface it makes sense, but it is too simple to say X soldiers of Blackwater or another group will switch sides if offer Y more money from whoever.

As well, besides this simple fact, is the reason that PMF and PMC's forces will always be inferior to the forces of the state which means through action on behalf of the state they can be controlled.

For your theory to work each individual would have to be a moral less, ethical less killing machine concerned with nothing but money and the chance to kill people. While I am sure that there are people out there who are like that, I doubt you would find many of them in the PMF, PMC fields where standards have to be kept to stay open for government contracts. If BW agents had a reputation of switching sides, I doubt they would be receiving the money they are at the moment for the activities they are participating in.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Who exactly do you think they are going to attack that scares you so much? And do you think when govts around the world deploy their military it is for noble causes? That last line is rather amusing.

It's not a matter of being "scared" it's just common sense. Guns for Hire can be hired by anyone with the Cash and as such are simply a danger. For a very long time Mercs have been a small group on the fringe of existence, the establishment of BW and others is just a bad thing in the longrun.

Glad you're amused, but clearly National Militaries are Motivated and Controlled much better than Mercs.

Oh yes clearly. Belgium troops running child sex rings in Congo.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Like I said, these companies are not going to work for any dictatorial gov, they have reputations, and those that don't and work for anybody you cannot do anything about anyway.

Let's put aside conjecture and look at actual history. The examples mentioned in this thread, such as Sierra Leone and, the wiki link speaks of Angola, are two examples where a PMC has done very well. We all know how pitiful the UN was in Rwanda, is now in Darfur, and basically anywhere else it has sat around eating MREs and masturbating.

You can say that all you want, but that's just you saying it. There are examples of Al Queda, Hitler, and if I dug I could probably find Stalin doing Good or even Great things that were beneficial. It's Moot that they occassionally have done positive things, their Motivation is $$, not Charity.

Basically this thread has brought up concrete examples of where mercs have substantially benefited in an area where the UN couldn't and instead of answering pragmatically you're using far less finite conjecture to argue against them.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

Exactly the problem. All is fine and dandy when the right people hire them, but what happens when the wrong people hire them?

I rather have people blowing shit up who are Motivated by something more noble than a Paycheque.

Like I said, these companies are not going to work for any dictatorial gov, they have reputations, and those that don't and work for anybody you cannot do anything about anyway.

Let's put aside conjecture and look at actual history. The examples mentioned in this thread, such as Sierra Leone and, the wiki link speaks of Angola, are two examples where a PMC has done very well. We all know how pitiful the UN was in Rwanda, is now in Darfur, and basically anywhere else it has sat around eating MREs and masturbating.

You can say that all you want, but that's just you saying it. There are examples of Al Queda, Hitler, and if I dug I could probably find Stalin doing Good or even Great things that were beneficial. It's Moot that they occassionally have done positive things, their Motivation is $$, not Charity.

Except Al Queda, Hitler and Stalin were also motivated by Ideologies, not solely money which represents State funded application of force. Hitler and Stalin both used State force (which supposedly is safer according to some people here) AQ is a PMF to a degree and is a better example of what could go wrong with PMF, but we are not in Iraq or even Afghanistan due to AQ, we went to Afghanistan because the Taliban using State sponsored force that was sanctioned and implemented using AQ, which means you could interpret the actions of AQ as state sponsored as well.

It would be as if BlackWater went and blew up buildings in Moscow and the US refused to do anything.

So all your examples are examples of State Sponsored applications of force that were motivated by ideologies and had nothing to do with PMF that were motivated by money.

 

[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?

 

[ranmaniac]

Not in the way you suggested. Blackwater is good at protecting VIPs, but they would more likely end up creating more problems than solving them. Using special forces, and providing training and equipment for the locals to defend their own territory than using overpaid security contractors is probably a better solution.

 

[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)

 

[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.

 

[StageLeft]

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.

 

[sandorski]

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.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm pretty rigid on opposition to Industrializing Warfare further than what it is now.

 

[piasabird]

We can not secure our southern border, so why should we care about any other country?

Either you believe in open borders or you do not. It might be easier to train villagers to start defending themselves and supplying them with weapons.

You have got to be kidding every country we try to help becomes radicalized, turns to Islam, or signs up for communism.

It is only a miracle that ROK (South Korea) is still a free country.

 

[feralkid]

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.

No thanks.

 

[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:

 

[TallBill]

It's a private business, they can go wherever the fuck they want.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: feralkid
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:

A patronizing and wholly inappropriate post from you, especially since those arguing for it have been the only ones in this thread to give facts & examples and not only opinion.

 

[Genx87]

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:

It was people like you who reopened a bloody chapter in Sierra Leone and prolonged needless bloodshed. Please dont get all high and mighty on the rest of us.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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:

It was people like you who reopened a bloody chapter in Sierra Leone and prolonged needless bloodshed. Please dont get all high and mighty on the rest of us. Your altruistic vision failed in the real world.

"Reopened"?

Hell, junior, I started it!

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


:laugh:

 

[StageLeft]

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.