I dunno, part of me wants to believe the company has shaped up, but they better stay the crap out of Iraq.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Our government deserves only the highest level of contempt for allowing reliance on low-accountability mercenary corps.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ran out of that kind, will have to substitute my second highest level of contempt
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Our government deserves only the highest level of contempt for allowing reliance on low-accountability mercenary corps.
Right so long as they run that sort of outfit. I was trying not to be overly pessimistic in light of my utter contempt for this organization, but I felt like I might be being too uncharitable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I will just state that there is a reason why Blackwater can offer these services cheaper. But, I have little better to say than what another person already said:
quote:As a member of the US military I wish mercenary companies would collectively choke on a dick. You want to travel around the planet with a weapon to enforce the will of the American government? Put on a uniform, swear an oath, and subject yourself to the same laws that govern the rest of us.
I'll never work for a company like this. My honor and integrity are worth a thousand times to me, whatever inflated paychecks these gunmonkeys can pull down while murdering innocent people.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Blackwater is digusting, of course, but let's not pretend like U.S. (or any other country's) troops are not also mercenaries. Putting on a uniform or taking an oath does not change the basic fact that a soldier is a professional killer. There may be a difference in scale but not in kind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: Blackwater is digusting, of course, but let's not pretend like U.S. (or any other country's) troops are not also mercenaries.
I don't have to pretend they aren't; they aren't. The definition of mercenary doesn't apply to armed servicemen unless you coarsely redefine mercenary to include nationals and parties to the conflict under an umbrella concept of 'fights, is paid circumstantial to their service as a fighter'
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:I don't have to pretend they aren't; they aren't. The definition of mercenary doesn't apply to armed servicemen unless you coarsely redefine mercenary to include nationals and parties to the conflict under an umbrella concept of 'fights, is paid circumstantial to their service as a fighter'
I, etymology, and the dictionary all define "mercenary" as someone who accepts money to fight and kill. The identity of the payer is largely immaterial.
If any "redefinition" has taken place, it's those who have arbitrarily excluded "armed servicemen" from the definition. Thank you, nation-state and patriotism!!!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If any "redefinition" has taken place, it's those who have arbitrarily excluded "armed servicemen" from the definition. Thank you, nation-state and patriotism!!!
Mercenaries and government-run militaries have been separated in definition since well before the nation-state or the rise of patriotism, the clear distinction dating back at very least into the early Roman empire.
What's more, if you check the dictionary, you'll find that the definition applied to those who fight in war does distinguish the nature of the payer. What dictionary did you check in before you asserted the contents?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
For ease, dictionary.com gives us:
quote:–adjective 1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal. 2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc. –noun 3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army. 4. any hireling.
Both our definitions are validated here. I have no problem accepting that the defintion Samp and fugu are using ("hired to serve in a foregin army") is a specific sub-definition of the more general one I'm using ("any hireling").
fugu, could you give me your "clear distinction" from the early Roman empire? Once the Roman army because professionalized, I can't think of any real difference between state troops and auxilia besides ethnic origin, citizenship status, and pay. They fought side-by-side and followed orders from their superiors.
<shrug> If we're really hung up on the definition of "mercenary," I'm glad to drop it, as the distinction is minimal. My point is that, whatever nomenclature or classification you want to use, just about any type of soldier is a salaried, professional killer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Both our definitions are validated here.
No. Yours is invalidated. Soldiers who are pledged to a nation-state for military service are not hired to serve in a foreign army. They're in their own country's army. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, yours is not. The first adjective definition is a generic use of mercenary that would make most employees for any purpose mercenaries (and is thus irrelevant for this discussion). The second comports with the relevant distinction. The first noun definition also includes the relevant distinction, and the second noun definition has the same overly-general character as the first adjectival definition.
In other words, mercenary, as it is specifically applied to people who engage in military activities, in all cases includes a distinction of who is doing the hiring.
As for the "clear distinction", the distinction in question that we were discussing was linguistic -- in the minds of the people who thought and talked about them. That the linguistic distinctions were maintained and considered important to people is ample evidence the distinction existed, contrary to your assertion that armed servicemen were excluded from being considered mercenaries in recent years.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:No. Yours is invalidated.
No, it's not. "Any hireling" includes professional soldiers in their own country's army.
quote:The first adjective definition is a generic use of mercenary that would make most employees for any purpose mercenaries (and is thus irrelevant for this discussion).
But it isn't irrelevant, as my point was that both Blackwater and national armies are "mercenaries" in the sense that both are paid for their military work. Both are mercenaries in the larger setting of professional violence.
Like I said, guys, I'll concede that there is an operational definition of "mercenary" that is more specific than the one I was using, and I should have been clearer about my rejection of the usefulness of the term.
Now, again, my point was that "serviceman" and mercenary are both professions in which people are paid to learn how to kill, to engage in battle, and to follow military orders. If this is incorrect, could you please explain why?
I'm not saying that one doesn't tend to be better than the other; I would rather run into U.S. troops in a dark alley than Blackwater guys. But I would much rather run into neither.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Except that, as Sam and fugu have pointed out, the definition of mercenary you're taking advantage of applies not just to paid fighters, but paid anythings. The term "mercenary" as it's commonly used, is useful precisely because it differentiates between soldiers fighting for their country and soldiers fighting for hire, employed by a private firm.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Blackwater supports the markets.
Anything that supports the markets is good for America.