Blackwater USA

[Hababi]

"Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled weapons into Iraq that might have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terror organization, U.S. officials say. "
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTksOqfVG8ksAsRXQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjdmNoOTV jBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12k8efmda/EXP=1190591118/**http%3a//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/22/iraq/main3288070.shtml

and
"Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in a shooting last week that left 11 people dead, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday. He said the case was referred to the Iraqi judiciary."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AnvqItT6IpoAB1owUYNnkoOs0NUE


Not good.

What do you think the charges should be? The second story is getting more attention, and is obviously very serious, but the first one seems to constitute out and out treason. Should the Blackwater USA employees who allegedly smuggled weapons to black market sources to sell to terrorists in Iraq face treason charges?

Your thoughts?

[telemore]

blackwater were the contracted snipers and all that, right?

they wear civ clothes, sometimes and whatever.

i don't know about any of this stuff, but i do remember seeing these guys and thinking they were cool as hell.

[Independent_CA]

Blackwater is basically a legal mercenary army. They have their own armored vehicles and aircraft and work for the US government as well as other governments around the world. They developed their own armored vehicle and actively develop new small arms and other combat equipment.

And yes, the ones selling these weapons should face treason charges.

[totah]

Wow, someone tried to make money from a war!? Evil bastards! How could they? Don't they realise there's a higher moral issue here!

[Independent_CA]

Wow, someone tried to make money from a war!? Evil bastards! How could they? Don't they realise there's a higher moral issue here!
It has nothing to do with higher moral causes. Selling weapons to your current or potential enemies pretty much constitutes treason.

[totah]

It has nothing to do with higher moral causes. Selling weapons to your current or potential enemies pretty much constitutes treason.

Treason is when you betray your country, which has quite a few moral implications. In a globalised world of international economics, why shouldn't I sell weapons to whoever's buying? I'm willing to bet that the Blackwater HQ is in Cayman Islands or something similar, and besides they're not selling it to terrorists, they're selling it to black market dealers who then might themselves sell it to whoever's happy to buy. Once the exchange is made they bear none of the responsibility, right? For example, it's not America's responsibility if all those chemicals they sold Hussein back in the day went straight into the Kurds, is it?

You chose capitalism, you chose drive for profit, and there's no room for morality and principles when there's profit to be made.

Anyway, during the Iran-Iraq skit in the 80s every national arms industry in the world was going around selling weapons to BOTH sides.

[Smokey D]

This is where proponents and opponents both of globalisation get ahead of themselves. The international free market has not and probably will not replace the nation-state.

And you can use capitalism responsibly and morally.

[totah]

No you can't, not when it means state capitalism.

The international market (note the lack of the word "free") as the abstract it is cannot replace nationstates as a political institution, but nationstates are intricately and inextricably tied up in their economies and as those economies begin to merge through borders and become less atomised (as has been happening for a while now) then nationstates will also have to, or face the prospect of becoming obsolete. That is the EU, which forces member states to modify a variety of their laws. Same with NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA.

[Smokey D]

No you can't, not when it means state capitalism.

Use your imagination.


The international market (note the lack of the word "free") as the abstract it is cannot replace nationstates as a political institution, but nationstates are intricately and inextricably tied up in their economies and as those economies begin to merge through borders and become less atomised (as has been happening for a while now) then nationstates will also have to, or face the prospect of becoming obsolete. That is the EU, which forces member states to modify a variety of their laws. Same with NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA.

Sure, markets can do a lot of things, and at the moment they're doing a lot. But they aren't everything, and never will be.

[Independent_CA]

Treason is when you betray your country, which has quite a few moral implications. In a globalised world of international economics, why shouldn't I sell weapons to whoever's buying? I'm willing to bet that the Blackwater HQ is in Cayman Islands or something similar, and besides they're not selling it to terrorists, they're selling it to black market dealers who then might themselves sell it to whoever's happy to buy. Once the exchange is made they bear none of the responsibility, right? For example, it's not America's responsibility if all those chemicals they sold Hussein back in the day went straight into the Kurds, is it?

You chose capitalism, you chose drive for profit, and there's no room for morality and principles when there's profit to be made.

Anyway, during the Iran-Iraq skit in the 80s every national arms industry in the world was going around selling weapons to BOTH sides.

Blackwater is headquartered in North Carolina and is primarily made of US citizens.

Treason is an objective offense. You either did something to betray "your side" or you didn't.

[Akira]

I can't believe someone could defend Blackwater's weapons sales.

Anyways, Blackwater is disgusting. While the first story is probably treason, the second story is important because it was by no means an isolated incident. As I said in another thread, Blackwater's impeccable record of keeping its clients alive is a result of their policy of shooting first and asking questions never.

[Danish]

Does this actually surprise anyone?

[BridgeToSolace]

It's nice to see the Iraqi government actually doing something, though.

[Independent_CA]

Does this actually surprise anyone?
No. Unfortunately, I think this is going to be the wave of the future. As globalization continues, I think we're going to see more firms like Blackwater crop up in the US and elsewhere, and many of them will probably be worse. Having an army of private mercenaries would be an attractive option to many companies, governments, and any number of shady characters. They don't have any real political allegiance, aren't bound by any treaties, and follow their own training regimens and codes of conduct. Wherever they are hired to go and whatever they are hired to do, they will go there and do it. I see this leading to some very bad things in the future.

BTW Danish, I've been meaning to ask what you've been doing with yourself lately.

[Danish]

No. Unfortunately, I think this is going to be the wave of the future. As globalization continues, I think we're going to see more firms like Blackwater crop up in the US and elsewhere, and many of them will probably be worse. Having an army of private mercenaries would be an attractive option to many companies, governments, and any number of shady characters. They don't have any real political allegiance, aren't bound by any treaties, and follow their own training regimens and codes of conduct. Wherever they are hired to go and whatever they are hired to do, they will go there and do it. I see this leading to some very bad things in the future.

BTW Danish, I've been meaning to ask what you've been doing with yourself lately.

I'm a teaching assistant in labour studies at Brock and I've been active in my union (CUPE Local 4207). Trying to figure out what to do next, you know how it is. You?

[Independent_CA]

I'm a teaching assistant in labour studies at Brock and I've been active in my union (CUPE Local 4207). Trying to figure out what to do next, you know how it is. You?
Double majoring at San Diego State and partyin a lot of course! I got about a year and a half left as a Marine reservist and I also have a work-study job at the Veterans Affairs Office near SDSU. Hopefully graduating in 2009.

[Reaganista]

It has nothing to do with higher moral causes. Selling weapons to your current or potential enemies pretty much constitutes treason.
um no it constitutes shrewd business leadership

[Independent_CA]

um no it constitutes shrewd business leadership

And treason. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Mr. Ron]

Just curious, but can anyone join Blackwater? Lets say an average joe would want to do it, could they just go for training?

[Independent_CA]

Just curious, but can anyone join Blackwater? Lets say an average joe would want to do it, could they just go for training?

Yeah you can apply just like any company although they prefer prior relevant experience, like the military, law enforcement, etc. They also offer a lot of training courses to police departments and things like that. I think they offer classes for private citizens but I'm not sure. The company is run by a former Navy SEAL.

[Akira]

Just curious, but can anyone join Blackwater? Lets say an average joe would want to do it, could they just go for training?

I'm going to guess that it is a pretty rigorous hiring process.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

This is the reason why I think privatising the military is a bad idea, full stop. The only people who could support it would surely be those with a major inclination to the right at the expense of rationality and pragmatism, and also those who profit.

They are bad in theory and bad in practise, what more needs to be said. Bad as in unbenificial.

I'm going to guess that it is a pretty rigorous hiring process.

Previous experience in military/with guns, attraction to firearms, disregard for human life, dislike of accountability for their actions. The sort of person who you would not want getting a gun in civilian life.

[Danish]

Using a privatized military is perfect for the US. It's well within the neoliberal project of privatizing everything, the soldiers doing the work get better pay and benefits as well as no pesky international laws to follow, and it absolves the Pentagon of any responsibility when they do "dirty work".

Isn't this a win-win for everyone?

[lfantwister]

no pesky international laws to follow,

...like those stop anyone

[Already_Taken]

They sold them the weapons because there weren't enough people with weapons to shoot. If they give civilians guns, they don't have to kill civilians.

[ringworm]

The sort of person who you would not want getting a gun in civilian life.
lol, idk, i'd rather be surrounded by civilians with extensive firearms training than morons that just got their permits :p

disregard for human life, dislike of accountability for their actions.
eh, i think that is way off of the average private contractor, many have families and such

its the unscrupulous owners that cant get anything traced back to them that need to be worried about, most of the employees are probably just highly traned ex-soldiers looking for work in the field that they are good at

[Smokey D]

...like those stop anyone

They do.

They don't stop hegemons.

[Danish]

...like those stop anyone

True, but the further they can get from legal responsibility, the better.

[lfantwister]

They don't stop hegemons

so they wouldnt have to follow international laws anyway. The US counts as a hegemon right?

[Reaganista]

sigh

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Mercenary groups are essential in modern war. With proper armies all tied up by UN fag'gotry, I wouldn't rely on them for the safety of my employees or my facilities, if I had an interest in the area. Not to mention the neccesity of hiring mercenaries to accompany shipping through the straights of Malacca or off the East African coast. Sad but true, businesses need mercenaries now to defend their investments.

[Smokey D]

so they wouldnt have to follow international laws anyway. The US counts as a hegemon right?

Just because I can break the law doesn't mean I should.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Just because I can break the law doesn't mean I should.

Why follow the law when it ties your hands and lets the other guy have free reign?

[Reaganista]

ust because I can break the law doesn't mean I should.
ya but just because a law exists doesn't mean it should be obeyed

[Smokey D]

Why follow the law when it ties your hands and lets the other guy have free reign?

Because that's a prisoner's dilemma.

And there are sometimes other considerations in play.


ya but just because a law exists doesn't mean it should be obeyed

True.

[pooble]

Using a privatized military is perfect for the US. It's well within the neoliberal project of privatizing everything, the soldiers doing the work get better pay and benefits as well as no pesky international laws to follow, and it absolves the Pentagon of any responsibility when they do "dirty work".

Isn't this a win-win for everyone?

Not for the Iraqis invovled in what Blackwater is being accused of, and certainly not American taxpayers.

Come now, you know better than to assume that only people of your political affiliation would be against this kind of organization.

[Against Miik!]

According to federal spending data compiled by the independent Web site FedSpending.org, however, the State Department's Blackwater contracts vastly exceed those of the Pentagon. Since 2004, State has paid Blackwater $833,673,316, compared with Defense Department contracts of $101,219,261.

Thats from the Washington Post. Imagine if we put that kind of money into medicine, or infrastructure, or jeez I don't know, education maybe? And I mean in the U.S. Not the middle east.

[italic zero]

we spend like ten times that on medicare and medicaid

[Against Miik!]

we spend like ten times that on medicare and medicaid

Well the 2007 budget proposed last February came out to around 2.7 trillion. Multiply that by 3, since we are talking about since 04'. That takes us to 8.1 trillion. Which means that, in a very simplified manner, 1 in every 8 dollars spent by the Federal government over the last 3 years has gone to Blackwater.

[italic zero]

i think you're a few orders of magnitude off

[Against Miik!]

i think you're a few orders of magnitude off

Most likely. Forgive me for trying to act like I know what i'm talking about.

[Smokey D]

8 trillion dollars is an awful lot. That's like almost 75% of the US's annual GDP.

[Already_Taken]

Well the 2007 budget proposed last February came out to around 2.7 trillion. Multiply that by 3, since we are talking about since 04'. That takes us to 8.1 trillion. Which means that, in a very simplified manner, 1 in every 8 dollars spent by the Federal government over the last 3 years has gone to Blackwater.

Blackwater has received 1 trillion dollars over the last 3 years?

[Ulysses]

private contractors are a bad idea. Adrenaline junkies looking for more freedom than the army can offer are dangerous in these fragile regions.

[Against Miik!]

Blackwater has received 1 trillion dollars over the last 3 years?

Well according to this Washington Post article I got off Digg, then ya. Unless I misread:chug:

[Independent_CA]

You know, when you think about it this sounds a whole lot like privateering. Aren't there like treaties against that?

[italic zero]

$833,673,316

is eight hundred thirty-three million, six hundred seventy-three thousand, three hundred and sixteen

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

You know, when you think about it this sounds a whole lot like privateering. Aren't there like treaties against that?

I don't think so as they are, nominally or otherwise, under the US Government mandate and working in co-operation with US forces, but I do think there should be, due to both the impacts of having them, the expense to the taxpayer of having them, lack of accountability and regulation of them, and potential for corruption.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

we spend like ten times that on medicare and medicaid

And well you should; healthcare is definitely moe beneficial than paying a company loads of money to kill people.

Not for the Iraqis invovled in what Blackwater is being accused of, and certainly not American taxpayers.

Come now, you know better than to assume that only people of your political affiliation would be against this kind of organization.

I thought he was being forcetious (I can never spell that word!). If he is, as I thought, then he makes the best point of the thread.

Mercenary groups are essential in modern war. With proper armies all tied up by UN fag'gotry, I wouldn't rely on them for the safety of my employees or my facilities, if I had an interest in the area. Not to mention the neccesity of hiring mercenaries to accompany shipping through the straights of Malacca or off the East African coast. Sad but true, businesses need mercenaries now to defend their investments.

UN fag'gotry like not shooting unarmed civilians, not torturing people, and the like? UN fag'gotry like peacekeeping in former Yugoslavia? Damn those spoil sports; a good all-american boy should be able to piss on who the hell wants, right? Anyway, those Iraqis are all freedom-haters and terrorists, so we shouldn't give them the freedom of not being shot. Go back to the ranch, cowboy.

IN any case, using private contractors as security guards is essentially different to getting them to do all the dirty work for you in a war zone, and giving them more or less free reign in a foreign country. It's the difference between having security guards at the mall in case an armed robber bursts in, and sending those same armed guards to act as vigilantes, or to do whatever you want really.

[Danish]

Privatization of anything is bad, but the military?

I have a feeling something is going to happen soon. Some civil unrest. I look forward.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

This reminds me of a trailer I saw of the ever-topical computer game, Metal Gear Solid 4, which had most war done by Private Military Corporations, in the Middle East, but all were under the auspices of one very powerful dude. Danish I doubt very much I'm as left as you, but still I really can't see how privatisation of the military can do anyone any good, except the shareholders and owners of the PMCs.

As if Americans needed another reason not to vote Republican.

[Danish]

I'm also fairly sure that contractors aren't considered in official US casualty numbers, so it would deflate the number of US soldiers killed or maimed.

[ringworm]

As if Americans needed another reason not to vote Republican.

we're screwed no matter which way ya vote, tbo, voting for Obama or Hilary just because they bash Bush publicly (but vote in favor of many of his policies, or just dont show up to cast a no vote) isnt fighting against anything but more of the same :)

we need major political reform :mad:

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

we're screwed no matter which way ya vote, tbo, voting for Obama or Hilary just because they bash Bush publicly (but vote in favor of many of his policies, or just dont show up to cast a no vote) isnt fighting against anything but more of the same :)

we need major political reform :mad:

The Democratic candidates do not have such a record of cronyism (by which I mean the investment of government money into privatising public organisations or roles to select companies without any competition (the whole point of such privatisation), which high ranking members of their government happen to be shareholders of, and making decisions which favour their interests radically over what would be best for the country). I also think that, largely speaking, their policies are better, and they are more likely to make open to change or new ideas than the conservative-dominated Republican party; such ability to adapt to the circumstances can only be a good thing in my opinion. That said, they are much more reactionary that they have been in previous years, particularly Obama, in my opinion, rather than progressive, which is a shame.

Personally I don;t think either Obama or Hilary are particularly excellent candidates, but they are a damn sight better than what the Republicans have to offer conversely, now that Bush and his little gang of NeoCons is out of the picture by and large, the Republican candidates are better than they have been for years, to the extent of me actually considering them to be voteable. I would rather have John Kerry or Al Gore personally than any of them, but that's not an option sadly. Even better would be to extend it past the two main parties, but in terms of funding nobody else can seriously compete - I also think there needs to be reform in the US (as well as in the UK and elsewhere, no system is perfect), for example limits on donations to political parties, and restrictions of slanderous or misleading advertising campaigns by supporters of each party (to get round the rules of each party not being able to directly mislead people about the nature of their opposition, at least htat is the idea). It's about the lesser of two evils.

The thing which annoys me in terms of democratic politics (not as in the party, as in the general system), is the way that a lot of people vote for certain parties based on what they have voted in the past, or what they think they stand for, rather than what they will do when in power (as far as anyone can tell).

[WhoDidTheElf]

The Democratic candidates do not have such a record of cronyism

What news have you been watching? Didn't you see the whole deal with Hilary and the corrupt contributions? And her husband ain't much better.

And I swear if I hear one more thing about Hilary-care I'm going to punch that ugly bitch in the face.

/rant over

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

What news have you been watching? Didn't you see the whole deal with Hilary and the corrupt contributions? And her husband ain't much better.

And I swear if I hear one more thing about Hilary-care I'm going to punch that ugly bitch in the face.

/rant over

Ok lol. I have no idea what you mean by Hilary-care, but I guess probably something to do with everyone having access to free adequate healthcare. THe bitch. SO now you may go and punch her :)

I'm not talking about corrupt contributions, I'm talking abotu the government favouring vested corporate interests over the rest of the country, which if I've got the right end of the stick, is a bit different. It's not about morally questionable deals, it's about those which are detrimental and those which are not, or rather the degree of harm they cause.

And her husband? You had BETTER not be talking abotu the Monica Lewinsky affair - who cares, it has nothing to do with anything; nothing but a guilt by association-style ad hominem.

peace :)

Where are my lovely LibDems when you need em?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Ok lol. I have no idea what you mean by Hilary-care, but I guess probably something to do with everyone having access to free adequate healthcare. THe bitch. SO now you may go and punch her :)

I'm not talking about corrupt contributions, I'm talking abotu the government favouring vested corporate interests over the rest of the country, which if I've got the right end of the stick, is a bit different. It's not about morally questionable deals, it's about those which are detrimental and those which are not, or rather the degree of harm they cause.

And her husband? You had BETTER not be talking abotu the Monica Lewinsky affair - who cares, it has nothing to do with anything; nothing but a guilt by association-style ad hominem.

Well her health care isn't for all and it's not free, let me say that lol.

And come on, you know if they're willing to do corrupt things now, then why can't they do them later?

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Well her health care isn't for all and it's not free, let me say that lol.

And come on, you know if they're willing to do corrupt things now, then why can't they do them later?

Well you have to pay tax if that is what you mean, but tax-funded healthcare is a pretty good system IMO, better than spending tax on a.) your corporate friends and b.) bombs and c.) throwing gays and people who cross the road in the wrong place in prison (well not literally, but you catch my drift). There are also other systems, which may be preferable to tax-funded healthcare, but there are so many better alternatives to the current inadequate system.

It's not about being "corrupt" per se, as the abstract concept you seem to imply (i.e. she does one thing that is bad so she is likely to do another even if the situation is entirely different), but specifically what a person does; there is a world of difference between the two things I have suggested. It is simply not the case that one instance of questionable behaviour is equal to another - that is a fallacy. I am talking from the standpoint of the history of their actions and policies whilst in office, rather than what happens outside of their policy making.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well you have to pay tax if that is what you mean, but tax-funded healthcare is a pretty good system IMO, better than spending tax on a.) your corporate friends and b.) bombs and c.) throwing gays and people who cross the road in the wrong place in prison (well not literally, but you catch my drift). There are also other systems, which may be preferable to tax-funded healthcare, but there are so many better alternatives to the current inadequate system.

Come on, you see how slow the American Government is, you really think socialized medicine would be smart? If any thing the government should just give tax breaks and let people pick a private provider. Puts more money in the economy, and private >>> socialized medicine efficiency

It's not about being "corrupt" per se, as the abstract concept you seem to imply (i.e. she does one thing that is bad so she is likely to do another even if the situation is entirely different), but specifically what a person does; there is a world of difference between the two things I have suggested. It is simply not the case that one instance of questionable behaviour is equal to another - that is a fallacy. I am talking from the standpoint of the history of their actions and policies whilst in office, rather than what happens outside of their policy making.

Meh I'm not a fan of her, especially after some of the shady things that have gone down with her husband.

[Reaganista]

how slow is the american government

[WhoDidTheElf]

2.1 mph

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

If any thing the government should just give tax breaks and let people pick a private provider. Puts more money in the economy, and private >>> socialized medicine efficiency

"Socialised" (note propaganda use of term socialism, IMO) medicine does put money into the economy as the money is paid to employees, who go and spend it in the economy. Obviously. Which is the same as what would happen to the other system you have suggested. If government (i.e. taxpayers') money is used to pay private companies to provide healthcare, that is in effect the same as a subsidy on the private health industry. As the industry would have guaranteed income from the government, it would artificially keep prices high, giving the taxpayer worse value for money, thus inflating the price of healthcare and taxes, and reducing cost effectiveness. Also, the prices will be higher under the private system as the medical companies are run for profit and so take the highest amount of money properly, with tax money lining the pockets of shareholders. All of these would make it less efficient than the public system.

[WhoDidTheElf]

If any thing the government should just give tax breaks and let people pick a private provider.

by this I mean to the people. Not have the government give money to the companies.

And while they are run for profit, they also have competition.

[italic zero]

And well you should; healthcare is definitely moe beneficial than paying a company loads of money to kill people.
sorry I'm being just as dumb as him. I meant a thousand times (it's more like 750 times, but whatever). But yes, yes of course medicare is better than blackwater.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

not shooting unarmed civilians, not torturing people, and the like? UN fag'gotry like peacekeeping in former Yugoslavia? Damn those spoil sports; a good all-american boy should be able to piss on who the hell wants, right? Anyway, those Iraqis are all freedom-haters and terrorists, so we shouldn't give them the freedom of not being shot. Go back to the ranch, cowboy.

I mean **** like the rules in Yugoslavia where you can't kill someone after they've thrown a grenade at you because after they've thrown it, they cease to be the threat and the grenade is. I wouldn't trust someone bound by the stupidity of international treaties and law to defend my intrests (and those of my shareholders) at all costs. I sure as shi't wouldn't want anyone but Blackwater/Sandline et al protecting my arse in downtown Ramalla.

[Independent_CA]

I mean **** like the rules in Yugoslavia where you can't kill someone after they've thrown a grenade at you because after they've thrown it, they cease to be the threat and the grenade is. I wouldn't trust someone bound by the stupidity of international treaties and law to defend my intrests (and those of my shareholders) at all costs. I sure as shi't wouldn't want anyone but Blackwater/Sandline et al protecting my arse in downtown Ramalla.

Who is Sandline? Another one of these kind of companies?

Anyway, I think this could develop into a problem where we have corporations like this waging war against each other. I mean if country X hires Blackwater to protect some of it's interests and rebel group Y hires some other company to fight against country X...what's to stop those two companies from attacking each other anywhere they can find them?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Sandline were in a big controversy a few years back when some companies in Papua New Ginuea hired them to fight Indonesians coming in from Irian Jaya.

That's actually quite a valid concern, that didn't occur to me...

[Danish]

Who is Sandline? Another one of these kind of companies?

Anyway, I think this could develop into a problem where we have corporations like this waging war against each other. I mean if country X hires Blackwater to protect some of it's interests and rebel group Y hires some other company to fight against country X...what's to stop those two companies from attacking each other anywhere they can find them?

Oh, the one-liners are too easy:

"Get ready for a hostile takeover bid!"

[Lupus]

Who is Sandline? Another one of these kind of companies?

Anyway, I think this could develop into a problem where we have corporations like this waging war against each other. I mean if country X hires Blackwater to protect some of it's interests and rebel group Y hires some other company to fight against country X...what's to stop those two companies from attacking each other anywhere they can find them?

They wouldn't go attacking another company, they'd do the job they're paid for.

[Smokey D]

Why couldn't that involve the elimination of another security company outside the original theatre of combat?

[italic zero]

that's healthy competition right there

[Lupus]

Why couldn't that involve the elimination of another security company outside the original theatre of combat?

When you're fighting a war it isn't worth sending people all over the world to cripple a big corporation, you have real battles to deal with, and killing mercenaries that are attacking you is better than killing those that aren't.

[Smokey D]

If I employ mercenary company A to protect my interests, and my enemies employ mercenary company B to protect theirs, there is an incentive for A to attack B before B enters the battlefield in order to prevent them from threatening my interests and vice versa.

Assuming I'm paying them well enough to do their job.

[recklessrick]

In this day and age of nukes why are we still ground pounding our soldiers into s--t wars? all it takes is 2000 megatons of fission and poof no more anything.

[Smokey D]

Because nukes can't achieve what the US (and most other powers) want when they go into occupy a country.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Another reason mercs are currently useful. No weapons of mass destruction of any kind, thus the wars can be "safe". Not to mention that the people at home don't care when mercenaries die, compared to their boys.

Although Machiavelli's points on the use of mercenaries may still apply...

[Smokey D]

If America didn't have to worry about nuclear weapons, it'd be even stronger relative to its enemies than it is.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

What I meant was more interest "A" hired mercenaries from company "X". Interest "B" hires mercenaries from company "Y". The mercs do all the fighting, no normal people can get hurt, no threat of nuclear war. Basically its the ultimate proxy war.

[Smokey D]

There's no risk of nuclear war anyway, really.

But I don't see why there wouldn't be collateral damage.

[Danish]

There's no risk of nuclear war anyway, really.

But I don't see why there wouldn't be collateral damage.

Oh no? Proliferation is at an all-time high. More country have nuclear capabilities than ever. And the stockpile is less secure than ever, primarily in Russia. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, it's been a friggin' weapons bazaar.

And tensions are increasing. I don't have a source to cite, since my source on this is my Ukrainian friend. You know how the US and Russia both used to patrol the Bering Straight 24/7 with on-ready nuclear bombers? Both sides stopped after the Cold War, but apparently Russia has started the patrols again. I'd be interested if someone could find an english source for this.

[Danish]

that's healthy competition right there

Oh that's good.

[Smokey D]

Oh no? Proliferation is at an all-time high. More country have nuclear capabilities than ever. And the stockpile is less secure than ever, primarily in Russia. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, it's been a friggin' weapons bazaar.

There might be a nuclear attack at some point (from a non-state actor or perhaps even a nuclear power on a non-nuclear power), but I doubt there'll ever be a full out nuclear exchange between two nuclear powers.


And tensions are increasing. I don't have a source to cite, since my source on this is my Ukrainian friend. You know how the US and Russia both used to patrol the Bering Straight 24/7 with on-ready nuclear bombers? Both sides stopped after the Cold War, but apparently Russia has started the patrols again. I'd be interested if someone could find an english source for this.

We had a thread on it a while back. But it's meaningless -- tensions were running much higher for most of the Cold War and there wasn't a war, and there's no real reason for Russia to bomb anyone now any way.

It's just a display of strength.

[Danish]

There might be a nuclear attack at some point (from a non-state actor or perhaps even a nuclear power on a non-nuclear power), but I doubt there'll ever be a full out nuclear exchange between two nuclear powers.



We had a thread on it a while back. But it's meaningless -- tensions were running much higher for most of the Cold War and there wasn't a war, and there's no real reason for Russia to bomb anyone now any way.

It's just a display of strength.

There was never "a reason", but we came one word from annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The nuclear tension of the Cold War was totally irrational, that's the scary part. If you don't think it could happen again, then you've learned absolutely nothing from history. Nothing has fundamentally changed since the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russian missiles pointed this way US missiles that. Then Russia starts bomber patrols after some 15 years? This is how tensions increased before. Russia as a country has gained some strength and are looking to re-establish themselves in the international arena. In a sense, they may be a valuable counter to American hegemony, but that's really insignificant at this point.

[Smokey D]

There was never "a reason", but we came one word from annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But Russia isn't in the same strategic position as it was as the USSR. There's even less reason to go to defcon 4 or whatever now than there was in the past (the only reason there would be is if the US entered a similar position, which it doesn't need to).

There was never "a reason", but we came one word from annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The nuclear tension of the Cold War was totally irrational, that's the scary part. If you don't think it could happen again, then you've learned absolutely nothing from history. Nothing has fundamentally changed since the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russian missiles pointed this way US missiles that. Then Russia starts bomber patrols after some 15 years? This is how tensions increased before. Russia as a country has gained some strength and are looking to re-establish themselves in the international arena. In a sense, they may be a valuable counter to American hegemony, but that's really insignificant at this point.

I'm going ot point out that you haven't learned anything from history if you think nuclear war is a likely prospect. Even in the most dire of circumstances, reason has prevailed. I should also point out that the Cold War is the only period in history when belligerence between two great powers hasn't resulted in conflict.

And a great deal has changed since the Cuban Missile Crisis. What the hell are you talking about?

Russia may be trying to reassert strength, but they're not in any position to take on the US in militarily at the moment and everybody knows it. It's far more in Russia's interest to bully the EU with gas exports and strengthen its internal strength than to try and match the US.

[Independent_CA]

Russia is a regional power at best now.

And Putin is doing all of this to play to his domestic audience more than he is to actually piss off the US or anyone else.

[Reaganista]

There was never "a reason", but we came one word from annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
that's only true in the sense that we've been perpetually one word from annihilation since the late 50's

[Lupus]

If I employ mercenary company A to protect my interests, and my enemies employ mercenary company B to protect theirs, there is an incentive for A to attack B before B enters the battlefield in order to prevent them from threatening my interests and vice versa.

Assuming I'm paying them well enough to do their job.

True but that's really no different from two groups of normal soldiers entering combat. I'd only be worried if uncontracted members of those companies were being targeted.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I'm personally attracted to the idea, because if you sign up to be a merc, you're the ultimate proxy. If you disagree with a certain assignment, you can quit. It's not losing normal, poor bloody grunt soldiers. Plus I figure if you sign up to kill people, that's how you get your rocks off, and thus "the horrors of war" are irrelevant.

[Independent_CA]

True but that's really no different from two groups of normal soldiers entering combat. I'd only be worried if uncontracted members of those companies were being targeted.

Yeah, but that's quite likely to happen I would think and that's the problem. Its kinda like mob or drug wars where they just target each other to wipe out the competition.

[Lupus]

Yeah, but that's quite likely to happen I would think and that's the problem.It isn't though, it makes no sense to do that. Even if it were desirable, they'd still have to face the same consequences as any company who tried to violently wipe out another. Its kinda like mob or drug wars where they just target each other to wipe out the competition.
Economically speaking their only competition are those companies that could be hired on their own side. It's actually in their interests to have other companies fighting against them because it means more violence and therefore more profit.

[Independent_CA]

It isn't though, it makes no sense to do that. Even if it were desirable, they'd still have to face the same consequences as any company who tried to violently wipe out another.
Well yeah there'd be consequences, but those weren't a deterrent to the mob or other crime organizations and I doubt they'd fully deter this kind of situation.

Economically speaking their only competition are those companies that could be hired on their own side. It's actually in their interests to have other companies fighting against them because it means more violence and therefore more profit.
Unless the side that hired them paid them more to actually win.

[Smokey D]

True but that's really no different from two groups of normal soldiers entering combat. I'd only be worried if uncontracted members of those companies were being targeted.

Yeah it would because it would a) globalise the war a lot faster and b) not be subject to international rules of fair conduct.

[lfantwister]

Russia may be trying to reassert strength, but they're not in any position to take on the US in militarily at the moment and everybody knows it. It's far more in Russia's interest to bully the EU with gas exports and strengthen its internal strength than to try and match the US.
As Russia’s national wealth grows exponentially thanks to rising energy prices, a more powerful Russian government has begun to oppose Washington ever more openly. Fervent Russian opposition to the placement of nuclear interceptors in Eastern Europe in 2006, Russia’s continuing aid in the creation of Iranian nuclear power plants, and Russia’s rumored sale of weapons to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution all work to create a Cold War atmosphere: what America proposes, Russia must oppose, and vice versa.

taken from an article abt the russian ambassador speaking at our school

[Lupus]

Yeah it would because it would a) globalise the war a lot faster I'm not exactly sure what you mean, could you explain? and b) not be subject to international rules of fair conduct.Yeah that's bound to be an issue. I really don't see why countries shouldn't take the same responsibility for their mercenaries as they do their normal soldiers.

Well yeah there'd be consequences, but those weren't a deterrent to the mob or other crime organizations and I doubt they'd fully deter this kind of situation.Yes, criminals are rarely deterred by the law, that's why they're criminals. However, legitimate businesses are, because they have a reputation to uphold and it would also be way easier to apprehend members of a company than a criminal organisation. No one in their right mind would do what you're proposing they might, it just isn't worth it.
Unless the side that hired them paid them more to actually win.They might pay them more to accomplish their objectives, but in regards to the actual war that would be quite impractical.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I don't think the international rules apply, that what makes mercs wonderful. They're not as "important" as soldiers, and they signed up to be mercenaries and fight mercenary actions, so who cares what happens to them. I just think theres a possiblity of making wars less damaging to decent people here, is all.

[Smokey D]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, could you explain?

I mean if there is an incentive to get the jump on rival security firms, there will be a movement to theatres outside the original combat zone.


Yeah that's bound to be an issue. I really don't see why countries shouldn't take the same responsibility for their mercenaries as they do their normal soldiers.

Well, in a way normal soldiers are a sort of mercenary since they're paid and all, but I appreciate the point you're getting at.

I see a difference between enforcing the conduct of agent of the state and of private individuals. Sure, they can be made subject to international regulations if you can catch them but that greatly reduces the point of having mercenaries.

I don't think the international rules apply, that what makes mercs wonderful. They're not as "important" as soldiers

Yeah they are.

nd they signed up to be mercenaries and fight mercenary actions, so who cares what happens to them.

Current Western armies are made up of professional soldiers who signed on to fight as well. What's the difference?

And besides, it's not what happens to the mercs that I'm worried about. I'm concerned with the actions of the mercs towards civilians.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I suppose the morality of the mercenaries depends on whos paying them. But I can't think of too many instances where you'd want to pay some dudes to kill civiliains.

[Lupus]

I mean if there is an incentive to get the jump on rival security firms, there will be a movement to theatres outside the original combat zone.

Why doesn't this apply to normal soldiers though?

Well, in a way normal soldiers are a sort of mercenary since they're paid and all, but I appreciate the point you're getting at.

I see a difference between enforcing the conduct of agent of the state and of private individuals. Sure, they can be made subject to international regulations if you can catch them but that greatly reduces the point of having mercenaries.

I think mercenaries should be considered agents of state once they are contracted.

And this mercenary business is starting to seem like a loophole to give people the same rights as soldiers without the same responsibilities.

[Reaganista]

Why doesn't this apply to normal soldiers though?
um it's called the security dilemma

[lfantwister]

think mercenaries should be considered agents of state once they are contracted.
theoretically could an individual or a corporation contract mercs?

[Smokey D]

Why doesn't this apply to normal soldiers though?

It does.

I think mercenaries should be considered agents of state once they are contracted.

As far as I know, they're not. Also, who says mercenaries would only be hired by states?

And this mercenary business is starting to seem like a loophole to give people the same rights as soldiers without the same responsibilities.

Yah, that's the problem.

[Independent_CA]

theoretically could an individual or a corporation contract mercs?

Anyone with enough cash could, so long as the mercenary group was willing to take the assignment.

[Steerpike]

I suppose the morality of the mercenaries depends on whos paying them. But I can't think of too many instances where you'd want to pay some dudes to kill civiliains.

It's not that they're specifically paid to kill civilians, it's that mercenaries are not bound by the same laws as professional soldiers, thus they have all the power and none of the oversight. That's a breeding ground for corruption.

Mercenaries in Iraq get their orders and enforce them. The trouble is, they don't have to answer to anyone. If they gun down a group of civilians in a case of mistaken identity, they're not held responsible. That's what has people so outraged about this.

The US military is made up of people who willingly enlisted. They are held to a strict code of conduct and violations of that code result in dishonorable discharge, and possible legal repercussions.

Mercenaries are bound only by the parameters of their contract.

In my eyes, hiring a mercenary is very similar to hiring a hitman. You are hiring a "private contractor" to do dirty work for you without all that messy oversight from the law.

[IPWNEDURMOM]

Blackwater are some badasses

[lfantwister]

Anyone with enough cash could, so long as the mercenary group was willing to take the assignment.

can you imagine the possibilities...

an american citizen sends troops to iran to wreak havoc
two corporations battle each other,, literally!
playground fights between rich kids take on a whole new level

[Independent_CA]

can you imagine the possibilities...

an american citizen sends troops to iran to wreak havoc
two corporations battle each other,, literally!
playground fights between rich kids take on a whole new level

Thats basically what I was getting at earlier...at least some of it.

[IPWN3DURMOM]

Blackwater are some badasses

i know right :chug:

[the_green_bastard]

The Romans also had more mercenaries than soldiers towards the end...

[Smokey D]

Well that's an irrelevant comparison, but cute.

[the_green_bastard]

Well that's an irrelevant comparison, but cute.

Well, I am a big cute cuddly bastard, aren't I? :smoke:

[RIP Ian Curtis]

It's not entirely irrelevant. If any of y'all have read "The Prince", Machiavelli makes some interesting points regarding the problem of hiring mercenaries, especially when they replace a regular army.

[Smokey D]

I don't care what Machiavelli or Gibbon or whoever has to say about medieval Italy or ancient Rome because they can't be compared to post-industrial societies like the United States.

Let alone the fact that hiring mercenaries is not what spelled the end of Rome.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

But it did spell the end of several of the Italian city-states, which is what Machiavelli writes about. And the basic "problem" with hiring mercenaries that he points out is still entirely valid.

[Smokey D]

I don't think mercenaries were that important in the Italian wars, since the states which overcame the city-states also employed mercenaries.

And the basic "problem" with hiring mercenaries that he points out is still entirely valid.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the society that hires them is on the verge of collapse.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I'm guessing you haven't read it. Bascially Machiavelli points out that mercenaries will either be

A) Weak, and thus they will fail and you lose

B) Strong, and they'll take you over, and you lose

[Smokey D]

I have read the Prince.


A) Weak, and thus they will fail and you lose

There's nothing automatic about this.


B) Strong, and they'll take you over, and you lose

Possibly, but that depends on the strength of other political and social institutions and structures.

[PerpetualBurn]

Hired mercenaries from Blackwater are strong enough to do the dirty jobs they are hired for and too few in number to ever take over America.

So no one cares about Machiavelli.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Would it be impossible for them to say, set up a dictatorship in a country in which they were employed?

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, pretty much.

Unless you can think of a really really tiny country with no allies.

And then explain how America would be the ones that lost.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I've dug myself a pit of boring hypotheticals, haven't I?

Meh, you win, CBF

[PerpetualBurn]

It's not that it's a hypothetical.

It's that you claimed an inherent problem of mercenaries, and then it turned out you were talking bull.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I still see it being an inherent problem. Even if they didn't take over completely, there's every possibility of a trained and organised paramilitary group becoming a law unto itself, if there is no force able to combat it. Which presumably there isn't, if you have to hire that group in the first place.

[Smokey D]

There's that problem with any armed group, including the conventional military or police.

Whether the military a) thinks it appropriate to take over civilian government and b) is successful in doing so depends on the strength of the society's political and social structures and attitudes against it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Which presumably there isn't, if you have to hire that group in the first place.

Except America has an army.

[ringworm]

from what i've seen, even the military is investigating wrongful actions by BW

it does look as if they did do something out of line, but i guess if we werent there, and havent had civilian dressed people taking shots at us, its hard to say how it went down or went wrong?