Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 07:49 pm

Yes, we have Private Military Companies. We have companies that have folks that work on naval vessels, these folks are integrated within military units that are still mostly military. We have "security" teams. We have teams that teach foreign troops, police, whatever how to shoot people.

My question is this: Should traditional mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, the guys that are not just instructors, and are not integrated with a military units in the rear area, at the most, operating standoff type weapons, be allowed? I mean mercs that actually fight in front line units, kick doors down and leave dead bodies on the ground, Mabey even entire units of nothing but mercs, mabey squad size or even platoon size, Working with existing military units, but actually in the thick, armed with a AKM or M-16 or whatever their company can afford, in an offensive military role?

Put another way: Should mercenaries be allowed to fill the role of infantry, or tankers, snipers, urban warfare specialists ect.? Or they should continue to be limited to the role they fill now, as per the geneva convention, which bans the traditional mercenary from existing?

dotcoma · Feb 29, 2004, 07:57 pm

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 08:26 pm

Roxdog, Are you going to give a reason? Or did you forget the Cardinal rule of this site?

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 29, 2004, 08:53 pm

There is no such thing as "should they be allowed". You either hire them or you don't.

Being a merc is a business. You sell your services to whomever.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 09:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
There is no such thing as "should they be allowed". You either hire them or you don't.

Being a merc is a business. You sell your services to whomever.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thats like saying "you either f*ck whores or don't" or "you either smoke pot or you don't." DUH! The question is, "should they be legalized?" Traditional mercenaries are currently classified as unlawful combatants. Should they be given status as lawful combatants, provided they are not, for example, indiscriminantly killing civilians, or participating in genocide? Your response iis completely rediculous.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 29, 2004, 10:04 pm

Bounty hunters are not illegal.

Of course mercs should be legal. Duh. If the police can't do their jobs then i would certainly hire someone who could.

Packratt · Feb 29, 2004, 10:24 pm

Sure, why the hell not? Corporations already perform hostile takeovers, why not let them buy armies and declare war on each other?

Every company is it's own little dictatorship already, why not seal the deal, give them borders and let the executives kill each other, let them be their own governments for real.

:rolleyes:

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 29, 2004, 10:59 pm

Buying armies and waging war is damn expensive!!! Just look at how much it cost us to invade iraq. No corporation has money like that to throw away in a meaningless act such as war.

Corporations have a bottom line...unlike government run institutions that simply get more money from the taxpayers to cover their inexorable deficits.

edited to keep only the essential

Mathieu · Feb 29, 2004, 11:16 pm

As expensive as it is, if they are paid to do so, why wouldN' they be interested in such enterprise ?

What if, for example, Aristide had paid to get a 5000 security force to secure Haiti ? It was already American and Canadian private agency who were in charge of Aristide close security.

Would it be ethics ?

There is already many task wich are executed by private contractors.

Here is only one exemple of coverage on this industry:

Modern days mercenaries

Packratt · Feb 29, 2004, 11:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)

Buying armies and waging war is damn expensive!!! Just look at how much it cost us to invade iraq. No corporation has money like that to throw away in a meaningless act such as war.

Corporations have a bottom line...unlike government run institutions that simply get more money from the taxpayers to cover their inexorable deficits.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Buying armies is cheaper than an executive's salary, if there is a profit in it, a company will do it, and war is not an exception just as slavery and murder are not exceptions to the businessman.

So far it seems like it's only the republicans who think government doesn't have a bottom line given all the deficit spending they partake in.

edited too ...

Leopard · Feb 29, 2004, 11:38 pm

war is an inefficient method of resolving disputes - businesses would conduct military style activities mostly in defense against governments.

Mercenaries should be legal. Our government employs them already: foriegn citizens may and do join our military and get paid. Our own citizens get paid to be part of the military. a merc by any other name......

michael

BTW: hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence

Packratt · Feb 29, 2004, 11:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
war is an inefficient method of resolving disputes - businesses would conduct military style activities mostly in defense against governments.

Mercenaries should be legal. Our government employs them already: foriegn citizens may and do join our military and get paid. Our own citizens get paid to be part of the military. a merc by any other name......

michael

BTW: hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Suuuure... We'll just have to take your word for that? riiight...

I'm sure the businesses wouldn't just keep mercs around to be idle in your utopian "freestate projects", they could have other jobs, like keeping the indentured slaves in line perhaps?

Physical violence? Well, tell that to the people laid off who end up on the street and their pensions stolen. Of course, no, it's not physical violence, but it is financial violence.

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 01:56 am

it depends on the theater of conflict...

a merc fighting in america would be subject to american law and would probably get arrested for murder...

same applies in other countries

Mathieu · Mar 1, 2004, 02:05 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
it depends on the theater of conflict...

a merc fighting in america would be subject to american law and would probably get arrested for murder...

same applies in other countries<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ok. but what if those governement are themselves hiring the mercs ?
What if a Dictator , who has no way to keep power by himself, was using mercenaries to stay in power ?

What if Aristide, in Haiti, had hired americans mercenaries to keep him in power ?
Chimeras, who were fighting for him, were some sort of mercenaries . The fact he lost the power show he had no way to hire enough people inside his country to pay his way to power.But he has the money.

Then should we allow people to sell their mercenaries service to him ?

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 02:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
it depends on the theater of conflict...

a merc fighting in america would be subject to american law and would probably get arrested for murder...

same applies in other countries<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ok. but what if those governement are themselves hiring the mercs ?
What if a Dictator , who has no way to keep power by himself, was using mercenaries to stay in power ?

What if Aristide, in Haiti, had hired americans mercenaries to keep him in power ?
Chimeras, who were fighting for him, were some sort of mercenaries . The fact he lost the power show he had no way to hire enough people inside his country to pay his way to power.But he has the money.

Then should we allow people to sell their mercenaries service to him ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

they can do what ever they can get away with doing... it isn't a question of permission or allowance... if they can, they will...

Leopard · Mar 1, 2004, 02:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
war is an inefficient method of resolving disputes - businesses would conduct military style activities mostly in defense against governments.

Mercenaries should be legal. Our government employs them already: foriegn citizens may and do join our military and get paid. Our own citizens get paid to be part of the military. a merc by any other name......

michael

BTW: hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Suuuure... We'll just have to take your word for that? riiight...

I'm sure the businesses wouldn't just keep mercs around to be idle in your utopian "freestate projects", they could have other jobs, like keeping the indentured slaves in line perhaps?

Physical violence? Well, tell that to the people laid off who end up on the street and their pensions stolen. Of course, no, it's not physical violence, but it is financial violence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

what are you talking about?

take my word for what? that hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence? what strange corporate world are you from? do you see CEO's punching each other out in a ring or something, perhaps little top-Level management teams sneaking into the competitor's building and kidnapping then replacing their management teams... strange, their must be some basis in reality for your statements, I just am having trouble discerning it.

keeping what indentured slaves in line? I already told you forced slavery was against every tenent of libertarianism - I must assume you either cannot read or cannot reason - either way its pointless to talk with you, you continue to repeat untruths. This is akin to me stating that you believe in raping puppies, even if proven false, yet I keep repeating it - I guess then it is a form of ad hominum attack... I'm sure you have more coherent ways to present yourself, in fact, I thought I saw an intelligent position from you in previous posts, lets try doing that again... easier to communicate that way.

what pensions stolen? theft is illegal currently and would continue to be in a libertarian society - it is an act of force, denying a person their property without consent.

financial violence? what new language are you creating? please explain what this refers to and if there is a better, more precise way of stating it instead of something awash with emotional bias..

Mathieu · Mar 1, 2004, 02:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

they can do what ever they can get away with doing... it isn't a question of permission or allowance... if they can, they will...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You are dodging the question.

Should american governement allow the enterprise to do mercenaries work in these condition ?

I mean in the real world , where there is a governement and their is law , not a libertarian utopia.

mlingley · Mar 1, 2004, 02:14 am

Wait a minute.. you mean the U.S. Armed Service can't already be bought??!? I thought we already were mercenaries.. I mean all the Armed Services do is go into countries to secure oil fields and other corporate interests in the name of "national security".

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 02:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

they can do what ever they can get away with doing... it isn't a question of permission or allowance... if they can, they will...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You are dodging the question.

Should american governement allow the enterprise to do mercenaries work in these condition ?

I mean in the real world , where there is a governement and their is law , not a libertarian utopia.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

it is not a dodge...

the american government has no jurisdiction to prevent it...

(here in america they can, but in other countries, the us is moot)

Leopard · Mar 1, 2004, 02:54 am

matheiu,
Should american governement allow the enterprise to do mercenaries work in these condition ?

I mean in the real world , where there is a governement and their is law , not a libertarian utopia.

there is no 'utopia', libertarian or otherwise...

BTW: libertarianism believes in having a government and most definitely law - perhaps your problem with libertarianism is that you are mis-informed about it, you are free to ask any questions and i will answer to the best of my knowledge.

----

in the 'real world'...

the government hires foreign nationals...
people hire 'bodyguards'...
our government sends the military to protect private corporate interests...

these are all mercenary in nature and all currently occur

Feb 29, 2004, 07:49 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	Yes, we have Private Military Companies. We have companies that have folks that work on naval vessels, these folks are integrated within military units that are still mostly military. We have "security" teams. We have teams that teach foreign troops, police, whatever how to shoot people. My question is this: Should traditional mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, the guys that are not just instructors, and are not integrated with a military units in the rear area, at the most, operating standoff type weapons, be allowed? I mean mercs that actually fight in front line units, kick doors down and leave dead bodies on the ground, Mabey even entire units of nothing but mercs, mabey squad size or even platoon size, Working with existing military units, but actually in the thick, armed with a AKM or M-16 or whatever their company can afford, in an offensive military role? Put another way: Should mercenaries be allowed to fill the role of infantry, or tankers, snipers, urban warfare specialists ect.? Or they should continue to be limited to the role they fill now, as per the geneva convention, which bans the traditional mercenary from existing? Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 07:57 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	No.

Feb 29, 2004, 08:26 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	Roxdog, Are you going to give a reason? Or did you forget the Cardinal rule of this site? Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 09:40 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) There is no such thing as "should they be allowed". You either hire them or you don't. Being a merc is a business. You sell your services to whomever.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thats like saying "you either f*ck whores or don't" or "you either smoke pot or you don't." DUH! The question is, "should they be legalized?" Traditional mercenaries are currently classified as unlawful combatants. Should they be given status as lawful combatants, provided they are not, for example, indiscriminantly killing civilians, or participating in genocide? Your response iis completely rediculous. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 10:24 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Sure, why the hell not? Corporations already perform hostile takeovers, why not let them buy armies and declare war on each other? Every company is it's own little dictatorship already, why not seal the deal, give them borders and let the executives kill each other, let them be their own governments for real. :rolleyes: "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 29, 2004, 08:53 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	There is no such thing as "should they be allowed". You either hire them or you don't. Being a merc is a business. You sell your services to whomever.

Feb 29, 2004, 10:04 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Bounty hunters are not illegal. Of course mercs should be legal. Duh. If the police can't do their jobs then i would certainly hire someone who could.

Feb 29, 2004, 10:59 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Buying armies and waging war is damn expensive!!! Just look at how much it cost us to invade iraq. No corporation has money like that to throw away in a meaningless act such as war. Corporations have a bottom line...unlike government run institutions that simply get more money from the taxpayers to cover their inexorable deficits. edited to keep only the essential

Feb 29, 2004, 11:16 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	As expensive as it is, if they are paid to do so, why wouldN' they be interested in such enterprise ? What if, for example, Aristide had paid to get a 5000 security force to secure Haiti ? It was already American and Canadian private agency who were in charge of Aristide close security. Would it be ethics ? There is already many task wich are executed by private contractors. Here is only one exemple of coverage on this industry: Modern days mercenaries

Feb 29, 2004, 11:22 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) Buying armies and waging war is damn expensive!!! Just look at how much it cost us to invade iraq. No corporation has money like that to throw away in a meaningless act such as war. Corporations have a bottom line...unlike government run institutions that simply get more money from the taxpayers to cover their inexorable deficits.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Buying armies is cheaper than an executive's salary, if there is a profit in it, a company will do it, and war is not an exception just as slavery and murder are not exceptions to the businessman. So far it seems like it's only the republicans who think government doesn't have a bottom line given all the deficit spending they partake in. edited too ... "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 29, 2004, 11:38 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	war is an inefficient method of resolving disputes - businesses would conduct military style activities mostly in defense against governments. Mercenaries should be legal. Our government employs them already: foriegn citizens may and do join our military and get paid. Our own citizens get paid to be part of the military. a merc by any other name...... michael BTW: hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 29, 2004, 11:47 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) war is an inefficient method of resolving disputes - businesses would conduct military style activities mostly in defense against governments. Mercenaries should be legal. Our government employs them already: foriegn citizens may and do join our military and get paid. Our own citizens get paid to be part of the military. a merc by any other name...... michael BTW: hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Suuuure... We'll just have to take your word for that? riiight... I'm sure the businesses wouldn't just keep mercs around to be idle in your utopian "freestate projects", they could have other jobs, like keeping the indentured slaves in line perhaps? Physical violence? Well, tell that to the people laid off who end up on the street and their pensions stolen. Of course, no, it's not physical violence, but it is financial violence. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Mar 1, 2004, 01:56 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	it depends on the theater of conflict... a merc fighting in america would be subject to american law and would probably get arrested for murder... same applies in other countries "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 1, 2004, 02:05 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) it depends on the theater of conflict... a merc fighting in america would be subject to american law and would probably get arrested for murder... same applies in other countries<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ok. but what if those governement are themselves hiring the mercs ? What if a Dictator , who has no way to keep power by himself, was using mercenaries to stay in power ? What if Aristide, in Haiti, had hired americans mercenaries to keep him in power ? Chimeras, who were fighting for him, were some sort of mercenaries . The fact he lost the power show he had no way to hire enough people inside his country to pay his way to power.But he has the money. Then should we allow people to sell their mercenaries service to him ?

Mar 1, 2004, 02:08 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) it depends on the theater of conflict... a merc fighting in america would be subject to american law and would probably get arrested for murder... same applies in other countries<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ok. but what if those governement are themselves hiring the mercs ? What if a Dictator , who has no way to keep power by himself, was using mercenaries to stay in power ? What if Aristide, in Haiti, had hired americans mercenaries to keep him in power ? Chimeras, who were fighting for him, were some sort of mercenaries . The fact he lost the power show he had no way to hire enough people inside his country to pay his way to power.But he has the money. Then should we allow people to sell their mercenaries service to him ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> they can do what ever they can get away with doing... it isn't a question of permission or allowance... if they can, they will... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 1, 2004, 02:10 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) war is an inefficient method of resolving disputes - businesses would conduct military style activities mostly in defense against governments. Mercenaries should be legal. Our government employs them already: foriegn citizens may and do join our military and get paid. Our own citizens get paid to be part of the military. a merc by any other name...... michael BTW: hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Suuuure... We'll just have to take your word for that? riiight... I'm sure the businesses wouldn't just keep mercs around to be idle in your utopian "freestate projects", they could have other jobs, like keeping the indentured slaves in line perhaps? Physical violence? Well, tell that to the people laid off who end up on the street and their pensions stolen. Of course, no, it's not physical violence, but it is financial violence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> what are you talking about? take my word for what? that hostile takeovers do not involve physical violence? what strange corporate world are you from? do you see CEO's punching each other out in a ring or something, perhaps little top-Level management teams sneaking into the competitor's building and kidnapping then replacing their management teams... strange, their must be some basis in reality for your statements, I just am having trouble discerning it. keeping what indentured slaves in line? I already told you forced slavery was against every tenent of libertarianism - I must assume you either cannot read or cannot reason - either way its pointless to talk with you, you continue to repeat untruths. This is akin to me stating that you believe in raping puppies, even if proven false, yet I keep repeating it - I guess then it is a form of ad hominum attack... I'm sure you have more coherent ways to present yourself, in fact, I thought I saw an intelligent position from you in previous posts, lets try doing that again... easier to communicate that way. what pensions stolen? theft is illegal currently and would continue to be in a libertarian society - it is an act of force, denying a person their property without consent. financial violence? what new language are you creating? please explain what this refers to and if there is a better, more precise way of stating it instead of something awash with emotional bias.. Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 1, 2004, 02:14 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) they can do what ever they can get away with doing... it isn't a question of permission or allowance... if they can, they will...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are dodging the question. Should american governement allow the enterprise to do mercenaries work in these condition ? I mean in the real world , where there is a governement and their is law , not a libertarian utopia.

Mar 1, 2004, 02:14 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
mlingley Molten Ash Posts: 120	Wait a minute.. you mean the U.S. Armed Service can't already be bought??!? I thought we already were mercenaries.. I mean all the Armed Services do is go into countries to secure oil fields and other corporate interests in the name of "national security".

Mar 1, 2004, 02:19 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) they can do what ever they can get away with doing... it isn't a question of permission or allowance... if they can, they will...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are dodging the question. Should american governement allow the enterprise to do mercenaries work in these condition ? I mean in the real world , where there is a governement and their is law , not a libertarian utopia.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> it is not a dodge... the american government has no jurisdiction to prevent it... (here in america they can, but in other countries, the us is moot) "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 1, 2004, 02:54 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	matheiu, Should american governement allow the enterprise to do mercenaries work in these condition ? I mean in the real world , where there is a governement and their is law , not a libertarian utopia. there is no 'utopia', libertarian or otherwise... BTW: libertarianism believes in having a government and most definitely law - perhaps your problem with libertarianism is that you are mis-informed about it, you are free to ask any questions and i will answer to the best of my knowledge. ---- in the 'real world'... the government hires foreign nationals... people hire 'bodyguards'... our government sends the military to protect private corporate interests... these are all mercenary in nature and all currently occur Take on the responsibility to be free