Current Events > The use of private military (or mercenaries) as a means for World Peace

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Doom_Art 10/10/17 9:21:28 AM #51:	And what exactly would the plan be (because keep in mind, these people are "under the radar") if the corporation decided that their men are being held unjustly? what if they decide the government/local law enforcement is "corrupt" and "hostile"? if there's no oversight they can just send more of their own people in if they're operating under the radar it's not as though there's any public outrage to cow them --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:888158630] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>And what exactly would the plan be (because keep in mind, these people are "under the radar") if the corporation decided that their men are being held unjustly? what if they decide the government/local law enforcement is "corrupt" and "hostile"? if there's no oversight they can just send more of their own people in if they're operating under the radar it's not as though there's any public outrage to cow them</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 9:28:45 AM #52:	Under the radar meant with respect to the press. This would all be done in cooperation with the local government. If we decided they were corrupt, we would leave. If our men were held unjustly, we would have to pursue a legal means of trying to get them out, the same way anyone else would. We wouldn't decide to do some kind of prison break unless it was to prevent human rights violations. That is what our guiding principle would be. Before we would take an action, we would ask: is this action the best thing we can do to prevent human rights violations while staying within the realm all applicable laws? --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888158900] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Under the radar meant with respect to the press. This would all be done in cooperation with the local government. If we decided they were corrupt, we would leave. If our men were held unjustly, we would have to pursue a legal means of trying to get them out, the same way anyone else would. We wouldn't decide to do some kind of prison break unless it was to prevent human rights violations. That is what our guiding principle would be. Before we would take an action, we would ask: is this action the best thing we can do to prevent human rights violations while staying within the realm all applicable laws?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 10/10/17 9:39:33 AM #53:	Sativa_Rose posted... This would all be done in cooperation with the local government. A lot of governments don't like surrendering their sovereignty Sativa_Rose posted... We wouldn't decide to do some kind of prison break unless it was to prevent human rights violations. Who is "we"? Sativa_Rose posted... That is what our guiding principle would be. Before we would take an action, we would ask: is this action the best thing we can do to prevent human rights violations while staying within the realm all applicable laws? Laws differ between nations and even provinces/states within those nations. What happens if you have a oligarchical authoritarian regime that criminalizes public assembly, collective bargaining, and dissenting opinions. The government is well known for its human rights abuses. However the regime has been in power for several decades and enjoys a high level of support from the upper/middle classes. In this country there's been a lower class/worker's rights movement. They want reforms to allow for fairer protections, open media, and greater rights. However this movement has recently militarized after being repeatedly cracked down on by the ruling regime. The movement has committed abuses of prisoners, and perpetrated attacks on government buildings and other places such as casinos, banks, and popular tourist locations. The regime has been very hostile towards this movement. There's many reports of widespread imprisonment, executions, and even torture. The kicker is the nation is rich with natural resources. Several NGOs, and even a few neighboring countries all continue to support the regime because of this. However, in spite of atrocities committed, the workers movement enjoys public support abroad, and from a few other neighboring countries as well. Presumably these NGOs and other nations wouldn't look to fondly on their side being shut down. So what happens then? --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:888159304] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>This would all be done in cooperation with the local government.</quote> A lot of governments don't like surrendering their sovereignty <cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>We wouldn't decide to do some kind of prison break unless it was to prevent human rights violations.</quote> Who is "we"? <cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>That is what our guiding principle would be. Before we would take an action, we would ask: is this action the best thing we can do to prevent human rights violations while staying within the realm all applicable laws? </quote> Laws differ between nations and even provinces/states within those nations. What happens if you have a oligarchical authoritarian regime that criminalizes public assembly, collective bargaining, and dissenting opinions. The government is well known for its human rights abuses. However the regime has been in power for several decades and enjoys a high level of support from the upper/middle classes. In this country there's been a lower class/worker's rights movement. They want reforms to allow for fairer protections, open media, and greater rights. However this movement has recently militarized after being repeatedly cracked down on by the ruling regime. The movement has committed abuses of prisoners, and perpetrated attacks on government buildings and other places such as casinos, banks, and popular tourist locations. The regime has been very hostile towards this movement. There's many reports of widespread imprisonment, executions, and even torture. The kicker is the nation is rich with natural resources. Several NGOs, and even a few neighboring countries all continue to support the regime because of this. However, in spite of atrocities committed, the workers movement enjoys public support abroad, and from a few other neighboring countries as well. Presumably these NGOs and other nations wouldn't look to fondly on their side being shut down. So what happens then?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 10/10/17 9:42:22 AM #54:	What happens if you have a tribal conflict in the middle of a small African country Both tribes have hated each other and warred with each other for centuries Recently both sides have obtained access to the black market and armed themselves. The areas the tribes inhabit are more or less a warzone now. Which side do you intervene in favor of? --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:888159405] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>What happens if you have a tribal conflict in the middle of a small African country Both tribes have hated each other and warred with each other for centuries Recently both sides have obtained access to the black market and armed themselves. The areas the tribes inhabit are more or less a warzone now. Which side do you intervene in favor of?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 9:42:25 AM #55:	Doom_Art posted... So what happens then? We likely won't get involved unless the UN or someone else gets involved. We're not going to be deciding to start overthrowing UN member states on our own. Remember, I've said we won't get involved in every conflict, just the ones where there is a clear cut difference in good and evil between the two sides, and ones where we will be there with the graces of the UN recognized government. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888159409] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>So what happens then? </quote> We likely won't get involved unless the UN or someone else gets involved. We're not going to be deciding to start overthrowing UN member states on our own. Remember, I've said we won't get involved in every conflict, just the ones where there is a clear cut difference in good and evil between the two sides, and ones where we will be there with the graces of the UN recognized government.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SGT_Conti 10/10/17 9:42:38 AM #56:	Under what standards is corruptness defined? Would this PMC be willing to help governments of nations even if they had poor worker safety standards, and hold their aid hostage when it comes to nations asking for help but, perhaps, have corporation-unfriendly laws? --- "I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." <cite>SGT_Conti posted [p:888159420] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Under what standards is corruptness defined? Would this PMC be willing to help governments of nations even if they had poor worker safety standards, and hold their aid hostage when it comes to nations asking for help but, perhaps, have corporation-unfriendly laws?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 9:43:29 AM #57:	Doom_Art posted... Which side do you intervene in favor of? See above, we analyze the situation, also what is the national government doing about this? If we get involved, it would be with their permission. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888159465] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>Which side do you intervene in favor of? </quote> See above, we analyze the situation, also what is the national government doing about this? If we get involved, it would be with their permission.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 10/10/17 9:44:51 AM #58:	Why should we trust the interests of a private corporation to serve the public? --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:888159522] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Why should we trust the interests of a private corporation to serve the public?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 10/10/17 9:45:01 AM #59:	Sativa_Rose posted... We likely won't get involved unless the UN or someone else gets involved. We're not going to be deciding to start overthrowing UN member states on our own. so this idea was smothered in its cradle rather quickly if there's only going to be action when the UN intervenes, why not just stick with the UN instead of arming private corporations with no oversight? Sativa_Rose posted... just the ones where there is a clear cut difference in good and evil between the two sides That's almost no conflict ever Unless you're talking about genocide? Sativa_Rose posted... and ones where we will be there with the graces of the UN recognized government. What if the government is perpetrating the genocide? --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:888159530] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>We likely won't get involved unless the UN or someone else gets involved. We're not going to be deciding to start overthrowing UN member states on our own. </quote> so this idea was smothered in its cradle rather quickly if there's only going to be action when the UN intervenes, why not just stick with the UN instead of arming private corporations with no oversight? <cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>just the ones where there is a clear cut difference in good and evil between the two sides</quote> That's almost no conflict ever Unless you're talking about genocide? <cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>and ones where we will be there with the graces of the UN recognized government.</quote> What if the government is perpetrating the genocide?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 9:45:33 AM #60:	SGT_Conti posted... Under what standards is corruptness defined? Would this PMC be willing to help governments of nations even if they had poor worker safety standards, and hold their aid hostage when it comes to nations asking for help but, perhaps, have corporation-unfriendly laws? You have to take it on a case by case basis, but we aren't going to sit by and let a genocide happen because people in the US are pissed that the country doesn't have good enough labor laws. Countries don't become awesome 21st century liberal democracies overnight, it takes many years. Also, many of these countries were puppets first by the colonists then by the Cold War, so many of these countries have only had a few decades to really try things out on their own. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888159552] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>SGT_Conti posted...</cite> <quote>Under what standards is corruptness defined? Would this PMC be willing to help governments of nations even if they had poor worker safety standards, and hold their aid hostage when it comes to nations asking for help but, perhaps, have corporation-unfriendly laws?</quote> You have to take it on a case by case basis, but we aren't going to sit by and let a genocide happen because people in the US are pissed that the country doesn't have good enough labor laws. Countries don't become awesome 21st century liberal democracies overnight, it takes many years. Also, many of these countries were puppets first by the colonists then by the Cold War, so many of these countries have only had a few decades to really try things out on their own.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 10/10/17 9:47:15 AM #61:	Sativa_Rose posted... we aren't going to sit by and let a genocide happen because people in the US are pissed that the country doesn't have good enough labor laws. That's absolutely the sort of thing the Nike Army would do --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:888159612] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>we aren't going to sit by and let a genocide happen because people in the US are pissed that the country doesn't have good enough labor laws.</quote> That's absolutely the sort of thing the Nike Army would do</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 9:49:29 AM #62:	Doom_Art posted... What if the government is perpetrating the genocide? Already answered. You seem to not understand that the following situation happens: 1) A UN recognized government is under threat from some sort of rebel insurgency that is committing genocide in its country 2) That country has been trying to deal with it but cannot because its military force is not well trained or well equipped 3) The country has been asking for outside help but no nation state cares enough to send its own troops to do anything Then we would come in and offer our assistance. It's a fairly specific situation, but it certainly happens all the time. It's happening in parts of the DR Congo right now for example with the FDLR. We would not fight AGAINST a government without the UN approval. We would fight WITH the government regardless. So there are going to be plenty of conflicts that we wouldn't be getting involved with. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888159714] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>What if the government is perpetrating the genocide? </quote> Already answered. You seem to not understand that the following situation happens: 1) A UN recognized government is under threat from some sort of rebel insurgency that is committing genocide in its country 2) That country has been trying to deal with it but cannot because its military force is not well trained or well equipped 3) The country has been asking for outside help but no nation state cares enough to send its own troops to do anything Then we would come in and offer our assistance. It's a fairly specific situation, but it certainly happens all the time. It's happening in parts of the DR Congo right now for example with the FDLR. We would not fight AGAINST a government without the UN approval. We would fight WITH the government regardless. So there are going to be plenty of conflicts that we wouldn't be getting involved with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 10/10/17 9:50:23 AM #63:	I'm a general in the Wal-Mart Militia If I want to intervene in a third world country what is my process for doing so? who do I have to appeal to? what's my oversight? if I screw up who do I answer to? if the country wants me to leave before I've actually finished the job, do I just leave? what's the whole process here --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:888159753] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>I'm a general in the Wal-Mart Militia If I want to intervene in a third world country what is my process for doing so? who do I have to appeal to? what's my oversight? if I screw up who do I answer to? if the country wants me to leave before I've actually finished the job, do I just leave? what's the whole process here</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BalisticWarri0r 10/10/17 9:51:22 AM #64:	Sativa_Rose posted... Doom_Art posted... What if the government is perpetrating the genocide? Already answered. You seem to not understand that the following situation happens: 1) A UN recognized government is under threat from some sort of rebel insurgency that is committing genocide in its country 2) That country has been trying to deal with it but cannot because its military force is not well trained or well equipped 3) The country has been asking for outside help but no nation state cares enough to send its own troops to do anything Then we would come in and offer our assistance. It's a fairly specific situation, but it certainly happens all the time. It's happening in parts of the DR Congo right now for example with the FDLR. We would not fight AGAINST a government without the UN approval. We would fight WITH the government regardless. So there are going to be plenty of conflicts that we wouldn't be getting involved with. Then what's the point? Seems like if "world peace" were the goal then they should be getting involved everywhere. This idea has too many holes and flaws to ever work. <cite>BalisticWarri0r posted [p:888159792] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>What if the government is perpetrating the genocide? </quote> Already answered. You seem to not understand that the following situation happens: 1) A UN recognized government is under threat from some sort of rebel insurgency that is committing genocide in its country 2) That country has been trying to deal with it but cannot because its military force is not well trained or well equipped 3) The country has been asking for outside help but no nation state cares enough to send its own troops to do anything Then we would come in and offer our assistance. It's a fairly specific situation, but it certainly happens all the time. It's happening in parts of the DR Congo right now for example with the FDLR. We would not fight AGAINST a government without the UN approval. We would fight WITH the government regardless. So there are going to be plenty of conflicts that we wouldn't be getting involved with.</quote> Then what's the point? Seems like if "world peace" were the goal then they should be getting involved everywhere. This idea has too many holes and flaws to ever work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 9:54:30 AM #65:	Doom_Art posted... what is my process for doing so? who do I have to appeal to? what's my oversight? if I screw up who do I answer to? if the country wants me to leave before I've actually finished the job, do I just leave? what's the whole process here 1) You are just a civilian so you have to do everything with the permission of the local government in that country, so start making phone calls and asking what help they need 2) You have no one to appeal to other than asking people in that country's government if you can provide assistance 3) The laws in that country, any laws in your own country that pertain to your actions overseas, and international law 4) Depends what you mean, but at no point are you no longer considered a civilian, so the answer is the same as if you're trying to open a taco stand 5) Up to you, but if you try to overstay your welcome you will likely be arrested & deported, possibly charged with something as well for not listening. It's like illegal immigration at that point. You seem to think that trying to do this grants you some kind of special headquarters you get access to. Nope, you are still just a civilian who has to show their passport at customs (if not there, then on the way back) --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888159926] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>what is my process for doing so? who do I have to appeal to? what's my oversight? if I screw up who do I answer to? if the country wants me to leave before I've actually finished the job, do I just leave? what's the whole process here</quote> 1) You are just a civilian so you have to do everything with the permission of the local government in that country, so start making phone calls and asking what help they need 2) You have no one to appeal to other than asking people in that country's government if you can provide assistance 3) The laws in that country, any laws in your own country that pertain to your actions overseas, and international law 4) Depends what you mean, but at no point are you no longer considered a civilian, so the answer is the same as if you're trying to open a taco stand 5) Up to you, but if you try to overstay your welcome you will likely be arrested & deported, possibly charged with something as well for not listening. It's like illegal immigration at that point. You seem to think that trying to do this grants you some kind of special headquarters you get access to. Nope, you are still just a civilian who has to show their passport at customs (if not there, then on the way back)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 9:55:59 AM #66:	BalisticWarri0r posted... Then what's the point? Seems like if "world peace" were the goal then they should be getting involved everywhere. This idea has too many holes and flaws to ever work. This is a fallacy in that you are basically arguing that if you can't be a 100% solution to a problem, why put any effort into something that will at least provide a solution in specific situations? This is not the only solution to world peace. This is just one piece in the puzzle that I think is currently missing, and I think that if this existed we would be closer to world peace (but not all the way there). --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888159994] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>BalisticWarri0r posted...</cite> <quote>Then what's the point? Seems like if "world peace" were the goal then they should be getting involved everywhere. This idea has too many holes and flaws to ever work. </quote> This is a fallacy in that you are basically arguing that if you can't be a 100% solution to a problem, why put any effort into something that will at least provide a solution in specific situations? This is not the only solution to world peace. This is just one piece in the puzzle that I think is currently missing, and I think that if this existed we would be closer to world peace (but not all the way there).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 10/10/17 9:57:23 AM #67:	This just seems pointless then There's already a mechanism in place in UN This is already doing the exact same thing, except arguably even more impractical And instead of being a public military force like a national military or the UN peacekeepers it just allows corporations to arm --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:888160066] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>This just seems pointless then There's already a mechanism in place in UN This is already doing the exact same thing, except arguably even more impractical And instead of being a public military force like a national military or the UN peacekeepers it just allows corporations to arm</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 10:01:20 AM #68:	The UN isn't enough. Take the DR Congo for instance. They provide patrols and security to the city of Goma right on the border with Rwanda. The city of Goma has not been attacked in several years as a result. However, the UN doesn't go into the jungles outside of the city, where these rebel groups are allowed to act with impunity. That's too offensive for the UN, it's not in line with their peacekeeping mission. The UN plays pure defense in a very literal sense. Additionally, the national government doesn't have the resources to stop them either. My suggestion? Send in a team of top special ops to track these guys down and take them out. It's the kind of thing that US Special Operations Forces would be great at, but back to my earlier point, the US public is not okay with us sending them to protect villages across the third world and being the world police. It's not what they signed up for, and it's not what people want their tax dollars going to. So instead, you'd have a force with the same capabilities that could do the same job, but it's not restricted by the national defense mandate that national militaries have. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888160248] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>The UN isn't enough. Take the DR Congo for instance. They provide patrols and security to the city of Goma right on the border with Rwanda. The city of Goma has not been attacked in several years as a result. However, the UN doesn't go into the jungles outside of the city, where these rebel groups are allowed to act with impunity. That's too offensive for the UN, it's not in line with their peacekeeping mission. The UN plays pure defense in a very literal sense. Additionally, the national government doesn't have the resources to stop them either. My suggestion? Send in a team of top special ops to track these guys down and take them out. It's the kind of thing that US Special Operations Forces would be great at, but back to my earlier point, the US public is not okay with us sending them to protect villages across the third world and being the world police. It's not what they signed up for, and it's not what people want their tax dollars going to. So instead, you'd have a force with the same capabilities that could do the same job, but it's not restricted by the national defense mandate that national militaries have.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 10:02:02 AM #69:	Also the UN takes forever to actually send people anywhere. This force could react as soon as we are capable of reacting, if that's what the local governments want from us. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888160286] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Also the UN takes forever to actually send people anywhere. This force could react as soon as we are capable of reacting, if that's what the local governments want from us.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BalisticWarri0r 10/10/17 10:05:31 AM #70:	Sativa_Rose posted... BalisticWarri0r posted... Then what's the point? Seems like if "world peace" were the goal then they should be getting involved everywhere. This idea has too many holes and flaws to ever work. This is a fallacy in that you are basically arguing that if you can't be a 100% solution to a problem, why put any effort into something that will at least provide a solution in specific situations? This is not the only solution to world peace. This is just one piece in the puzzle that I think is currently missing, and I think that if this existed we would be closer to world peace (but not all the way there). You are wanting to implement a system that could likely be abused heavily. You mention that they will follow national laws or international laws but criticize the UN for not working. Why would this organization abide by laws and regulations when it is the one who enforces said regulations? People already complain about the policies and procedures about law enforcement agencies in the United States. I can only imagine the scrutiny that some sort of world police force would be under. Would be better to just reform the policies of the UN and make it an organization that is capable of providing more support and intervention. <cite>BalisticWarri0r posted [p:888160435] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BalisticWarri0r posted...</cite> <quote>Then what's the point? Seems like if "world peace" were the goal then they should be getting involved everywhere. This idea has too many holes and flaws to ever work. </quote> This is a fallacy in that you are basically arguing that if you can't be a 100% solution to a problem, why put any effort into something that will at least provide a solution in specific situations? This is not the only solution to world peace. This is just one piece in the puzzle that I think is currently missing, and I think that if this existed we would be closer to world peace (but not all the way there).</quote> You are wanting to implement a system that could likely be abused heavily. You mention that they will follow national laws or international laws but criticize the UN for not working. Why would this organization abide by laws and regulations when it is the one who enforces said regulations? People already complain about the policies and procedures about law enforcement agencies in the United States. I can only imagine the scrutiny that some sort of world police force would be under. Would be better to just reform the policies of the UN and make it an organization that is capable of providing more support and intervention.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BalisticWarri0r 10/10/17 10:09:20 AM #71:	Sativa_Rose posted... The UN isn't enough. Take the DR Congo for instance. They provide patrols and security to the city of Goma right on the border with Rwanda. The city of Goma has not been attacked in several years as a result. However, the UN doesn't go into the jungles outside of the city, where these rebel groups are allowed to act with impunity. That's too offensive for the UN, it's not in line with their peacekeeping mission. The UN plays pure defense in a very literal sense. Additionally, the national government doesn't have the resources to stop them either. My suggestion? Send in a team of top special ops to track these guys down and take them out. It's the kind of thing that US Special Operations Forces would be great at, but back to my earlier point, the US public is not okay with us sending them to protect villages across the third world and being the world police. It's not what they signed up for, and it's not what people want their tax dollars going to. So instead, you'd have a force with the same capabilities that could do the same job, but it's not restricted by the national defense mandate that national militaries have. This is actually false. Majority of the individuals who enter the special operations community WANT to go to third world countries. And they do. 90 percent of US intelligence gathered throughout the world is done so by army special forces. Not the CIA or some other agency. It's done by special forces. The public doesn't know what the special operations community does. They only know what gets reported by the news media when bad stuff happens. Increase the funding in special operations and you'll see special forces teams be able to do more. <cite>BalisticWarri0r posted [p:888160589] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>The UN isn't enough. Take the DR Congo for instance. They provide patrols and security to the city of Goma right on the border with Rwanda. The city of Goma has not been attacked in several years as a result. However, the UN doesn't go into the jungles outside of the city, where these rebel groups are allowed to act with impunity. That's too offensive for the UN, it's not in line with their peacekeeping mission. The UN plays pure defense in a very literal sense. Additionally, the national government doesn't have the resources to stop them either. My suggestion? Send in a team of top special ops to track these guys down and take them out. It's the kind of thing that US Special Operations Forces would be great at, but back to my earlier point, the US public is not okay with us sending them to protect villages across the third world and being the world police. It's not what they signed up for, and it's not what people want their tax dollars going to. So instead, you'd have a force with the same capabilities that could do the same job, but it's not restricted by the national defense mandate that national militaries have.</quote> This is actually false. Majority of the individuals who enter the special operations community WANT to go to third world countries. And they do. 90 percent of US intelligence gathered throughout the world is done so by army special forces. Not the CIA or some other agency. It's done by special forces. The public doesn't know what the special operations community does. They only know what gets reported by the news media when bad stuff happens. Increase the funding in special operations and you'll see special forces teams be able to do more.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 10:10:13 AM #72:	BalisticWarri0r posted... You are wanting to implement a system that could likely be abused heavily. You mention that they will follow national laws or international laws but criticize the UN for not working. Why would this organization abide by laws and regulations when it is the one who enforces said regulations? People already complain about the policies and procedures about lawn enforcement agencies in the United States. I can only imagine the scrutiny that some sort of world police force would be under. Would be better to just reform the policies of the UN and make it an organization that is capable of providing more support and intervention. What I'm suggesting would already be legal under international law so long as you don't go around parading yourself as a mercenary and instead advertise yourself as providing security, and it's already being done quietly by companies like STTEP International (run by the guy who founded Executive Outcomes). These guys beat back Boko Haram in Nigeria and contained them into a small area in about 3 months in the beginning of 2015. The difference is that these companies actually have to make a profit and therefore are limited in that they can only get involved when they have a reasonable assurance they will get paid in the end. There would be a lot of legal things to go through though when it comes to importing weapons, using people from all kinds of different countries and training them, etc. That's why I am wondering what country would be supportive of such an activity. I agree with UN reform, but if that doesn't happen, this is something a private individual can do on their own in the meantime. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888160622] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>BalisticWarri0r posted...</cite> <quote>You are wanting to implement a system that could likely be abused heavily. You mention that they will follow national laws or international laws but criticize the UN for not working. Why would this organization abide by laws and regulations when it is the one who enforces said regulations? People already complain about the policies and procedures about lawn enforcement agencies in the United States. I can only imagine the scrutiny that some sort of world police force would be under. Would be better to just reform the policies of the UN and make it an organization that is capable of providing more support and intervention. </quote> What I'm suggesting would already be legal under international law so long as you don't go around parading yourself as a mercenary and instead advertise yourself as providing security, and it's already being done quietly by companies like STTEP International (run by the guy who founded Executive Outcomes). These guys beat back Boko Haram in Nigeria and contained them into a small area in about 3 months in the beginning of 2015. The difference is that these companies actually have to make a profit and therefore are limited in that they can only get involved when they have a reasonable assurance they will get paid in the end. There would be a lot of legal things to go through though when it comes to importing weapons, using people from all kinds of different countries and training them, etc. That's why I am wondering what country would be supportive of such an activity. I agree with UN reform, but if that doesn't happen, this is something a private individual can do on their own in the meantime.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 10:12:26 AM #73:	BalisticWarri0r posted... This is actually false. Majority of the individuals who enter the special operations community WANT to go to third world countries. And they do. 90 percent of US intelligence gathered throughout the world is done so by army special forces. Not the CIA or some other agency. It's done by special forces. The public doesn't know what the special operations community does. They only know what gets reported by the news media when bad stuff happens. Increase the funding in special operations and you'll see special forces teams be able to do more. I agree with you on both accounts. If it were up to me, we could just use the US SOF community to do what I am describing. It's the voters who don't want this when I really think about it. There's your average guy in the military who doesn't want to get deployed, but you're right that the SOF community is different. But when coffins come home from overseas, and people hear of their tax dollars being spent all over, it gets bad coverage. Like we just lost four guys in Niger a few days ago, you probably heard about it. I heard a lot of people on reddit question what we were even doing there. I support the mission there, but do you think the US public has the tolerance for an increase in those kinds of operations all over the place? --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888160730] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>BalisticWarri0r posted...</cite> <quote>This is actually false. Majority of the individuals who enter the special operations community WANT to go to third world countries. And they do. 90 percent of US intelligence gathered throughout the world is done so by army special forces. Not the CIA or some other agency. It's done by special forces. The public doesn't know what the special operations community does. They only know what gets reported by the news media when bad stuff happens. Increase the funding in special operations and you'll see special forces teams be able to do more. </quote> I agree with you on both accounts. If it were up to me, we could just use the US SOF community to do what I am describing. It's the voters who don't want this when I really think about it. There's your average guy in the military who doesn't want to get deployed, but you're right that the SOF community is different. But when coffins come home from overseas, and people hear of their tax dollars being spent all over, it gets bad coverage. Like we just lost four guys in Niger a few days ago, you probably heard about it. I heard a lot of people on reddit question what we were even doing there. I support the mission there, but do you think the US public has the tolerance for an increase in those kinds of operations all over the place?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 10:14:00 AM #74:	Also, this organization would be great for former SOF who are dedicated to the idea of fighting these insurgencies across the globe, but maybe the US is scaling back and deciding not to get involved. Like imagine of Bernie Sanders gets elected and we stop doing a lot of that stuff, and a lot of guys start coming out of those groups wanting to keep fighting? --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888160806] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Also, this organization would be great for former SOF who are dedicated to the idea of fighting these insurgencies across the globe, but maybe the US is scaling back and deciding not to get involved. Like imagine of Bernie Sanders gets elected and we stop doing a lot of that stuff, and a lot of guys start coming out of those groups wanting to keep fighting?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 10/10/17 10:44:33 AM #75:	Sativa_Rose posted... Like imagine of Bernie Sanders gets elected and we stop doing a lot of that stuff, and a lot of guys start coming out of those groups wanting to keep fighting? "I want to shoot people" is not a good excuse to allow you to. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:888162211] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>Like imagine of Bernie Sanders gets elected and we stop doing a lot of that stuff, and a lot of guys start coming out of those groups wanting to keep fighting? </quote> "I want to shoot people" is not a good excuse to allow you to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 10:46:22 AM #76:	Antifar posted... Sativa_Rose posted... Like imagine of Bernie Sanders gets elected and we stop doing a lot of that stuff, and a lot of guys start coming out of those groups wanting to keep fighting? "I want to shoot people" is not a good excuse to allow you to. I want to save people from being shot. When it comes to saving people from genocidal maniacs, there will be times when one must use a firearm. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888162310] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>Like imagine of Bernie Sanders gets elected and we stop doing a lot of that stuff, and a lot of guys start coming out of those groups wanting to keep fighting? </quote> "I want to shoot people" is not a good excuse to allow you to.</quote> I want to save people from being shot. When it comes to saving people from genocidal maniacs, there will be times when one must use a firearm.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wasserpanzer 10/10/17 10:48:55 AM #77:	won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat --- Pineapples are in my head. http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/muttley1211/bug.gif <cite>wasserpanzer posted [p:888162456] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/10/17 10:53:29 PM #78:	wasserpanzer posted... won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat Easy to just shrug your shoulders and say no one should try anything when you probably live in a very safe country --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888204047] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>wasserpanzer posted...</cite> <quote>won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat</quote> Easy to just shrug your shoulders and say no one should try anything when you probably live in a very safe country</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 10/10/17 11:18:40 PM #79:	Sativa_Rose posted... 2) The laws of the country they are in Which are often set by the the people committing the genocides ... so ... <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:888205501] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>2) The laws of the country they are in</quote> Which are often set by the the people committing the genocides ... so ...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SGT_Conti 10/10/17 11:27:59 PM #80:	All those restrictions you put in an attempt to assuage our concerns about this PMC from getting out of control basically ties their hands so much they'd be as effective as UN peacekeeping forces, cost more, and won't be able to deploy to where help is needed most. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.3 <cite>SGT_Conti posted [p:888205991] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>All those restrictions you put in an attempt to assuage our concerns about this PMC from getting out of control basically ties their hands so much they'd be as effective as UN peacekeeping forces, cost more, and won't be able to deploy to where help is needed most.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/11/17 12:10:32 AM #81:	SGT_Conti posted... All those restrictions you put in an attempt to assuage our concerns about this PMC from getting out of control basically ties their hands so much they'd be as effective as UN peacekeeping forces, cost more, and won't be able to deploy to where help is needed most. Nah, I think there's a lot of instances where they could be used. There probably aren't as many governments committing genocides as you think. We've done a decent job of stamping that kind of thing out of UN member states, with some exceptions. There is a long list of areas where such a force could be involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts Syria has too many world powers involved, Afghanistan is fucked up because it seems that the current government would quickly fall if it weren't for the US propping them up, Yemen doesn't have a clear good side, but many of these (not all) other conflicts shown could be intervened in if the host country wanted the help. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888208021] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>SGT_Conti posted...</cite> <quote>All those restrictions you put in an attempt to assuage our concerns about this PMC from getting out of control basically ties their hands so much they'd be as effective as UN peacekeeping forces, cost more, and won't be able to deploy to where help is needed most.</quote> Nah, I think there's a lot of instances where they could be used. There probably aren't as many governments committing genocides as you think. We've done a decent job of stamping that kind of thing out of UN member states, with some exceptions. There is a long list of areas where such a force could be involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts Syria has too many world powers involved, Afghanistan is fucked up because it seems that the current government would quickly fall if it weren't for the US propping them up, Yemen doesn't have a clear good side, but many of these (not all) other conflicts shown could be intervened in if the host country wanted the help.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 10/11/17 1:14:36 AM #82:	Sativa_Rose posted... SGT_Conti posted... All those restrictions you put in an attempt to assuage our concerns about this PMC from getting out of control basically ties their hands so much they'd be as effective as UN peacekeeping forces, cost more, and won't be able to deploy to where help is needed most. Nah, I think there's a lot of instances where they could be used. There probably aren't as many governments committing genocides as you think. We've done a decent job of stamping that kind of thing out of UN member states, with some exceptions. There is a long list of areas where such a force could be involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts Syria has too many world powers involved, Afghanistan is fucked up because it seems that the current government would quickly fall if it weren't for the US propping them up, Yemen doesn't have a clear good side, but many of these (not all) other conflicts shown could be intervened in if the host country wanted the help. You still run into the exact same problems. Firstly, there is no balance of power; the people in charge can do whatever benefits them best. With these forces being privately funded, this basically means paid armies with permission to operate anywhere for any reason they deem appropriate. There is nothing stopping them from using their military to hamper their competition or benefit their company. You say they would act in accordance with international law (which, actually, is pretty much just the Geneva convention, forbidding lead bullets and torture and all that) and the country's laws. The problem here is that I can't think of a country that gives the legal right to foreign military forces to operate in their territory based on their own whims. Part of a government is literally that they have a monopoly on violence, and outside of extreme circumstances like foreign conflicts (where other nations have already gotten involved). They wouldn't be allowed to operate 'legally' anywhere. That's not even getting started with how sometimes horrible things like genocide are state sanctioned, and by your definition, legally out of purview of the corporate armies. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:888210761] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SGT_Conti posted...</cite> <quote>All those restrictions you put in an attempt to assuage our concerns about this PMC from getting out of control basically ties their hands so much they'd be as effective as UN peacekeeping forces, cost more, and won't be able to deploy to where help is needed most.</quote> Nah, I think there's a lot of instances where they could be used. There probably aren't as many governments committing genocides as you think. We've done a decent job of stamping that kind of thing out of UN member states, with some exceptions. There is a long list of areas where such a force could be involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts Syria has too many world powers involved, Afghanistan is fucked up because it seems that the current government would quickly fall if it weren't for the US propping them up, Yemen doesn't have a clear good side, but many of these (not all) other conflicts shown could be intervened in if the host country wanted the help.</quote> You still run into the exact same problems. Firstly, there is no balance of power; the people in charge can do whatever benefits them best. With these forces being privately funded, this basically means paid armies with permission to operate anywhere for any reason they deem appropriate. There is nothing stopping them from using their military to hamper their competition or benefit their company. You say they would act in accordance with international law (which, actually, is pretty much just the Geneva convention, forbidding lead bullets and torture and all that) and the country's laws. The problem here is that I can't think of a country that gives the legal right to foreign military forces to operate in their territory based on their own whims. Part of a government is literally that they have a monopoly on violence, and outside of extreme circumstances like foreign conflicts (where other nations have already gotten involved). They wouldn't be allowed to operate 'legally' anywhere. That's not even getting started with how sometimes horrible things like genocide are state sanctioned, and by your definition, legally out of purview of the corporate armies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NadYobWoc 10/11/17 1:48:26 AM #83:	Rika_Furude posted... In World War 2, the world was split into two. East and West. It's "After the end of World War 2" --- Cowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scene <cite>NadYobWoc posted [p:888212058] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote>In World War 2, the world was split into two. East and West.</quote> It's "After the end of World War 2"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/11/17 1:49:42 AM #84:	International Law is a lot more than the Geneva Convention, which I don't even think would apply to a company that did this because the Geneva Convention is meant to address war between nations and their national militaries (which a PMC is not). That's why there is this really weird story from WWII of a group of German spies sneaking ashore in New York somewhere, but when they got ashore they actually put their German military uniforms back on because it meant that if they were captured, they would be considered uniformed soldiers in a national military (as opposed to spies, mercenaries, etc.) and thus given the protections of the Geneva Convention. But anyways, here are some other examples of international law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty Any country that is a part of these agreements has pledged to enforce these international laws in their territories. That's the way international law works. There's no UN police force that comes to arrest you. Instead, countries pledge to certain treaties and declarations to take that role upon themselves. This argument has basically become about international law. You say that these companies would have nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want, I say that no matter what they still have to abide by international law. The question then becomes: how is international law enforced? That is a question that is still under debate to this very day. I just watched a speech by one of the people running the International Criminal Court on the very difficulty of enforcing international law, and the fact that it mainly relies on governments voluntarily enforcing it, or in other words, just a hope that they will fulfill their pledge. For the record, I actually do think the International Criminal Court should hire bounty hunters to track down and bring to justice international fugitives like Joseph Kony who are still hiding out and continuing to commit atrocities in some cases. If these bounty hunters end up committing crimes, then they'll end up in an ICC prison too. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888212125] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>International Law is a lot more than the Geneva Convention, which I don't even think would apply to a company that did this because the Geneva Convention is meant to address war between nations and their national militaries (which a PMC is not). That's why there is this really weird story from WWII of a group of German spies sneaking ashore in New York somewhere, but when they got ashore they actually put their German military uniforms back on because it meant that if they were captured, they would be considered uniformed soldiers in a national military (as opposed to spies, mercenaries, etc.) and thus given the protections of the Geneva Convention. But anyways, here are some other examples of international law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty Any country that is a part of these agreements has pledged to enforce these international laws in their territories. That's the way international law works. There's no UN police force that comes to arrest you. Instead, countries pledge to certain treaties and declarations to take that role upon themselves. This argument has basically become about international law. You say that these companies would have nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want, I say that no matter what they still have to abide by international law. The question then becomes: how is international law enforced? That is a question that is still under debate to this very day. I just watched a speech by one of the people running the International Criminal Court on the very difficulty of enforcing international law, and the fact that it mainly relies on governments voluntarily enforcing it, or in other words, just a hope that they will fulfill their pledge. For the record, I actually do think the International Criminal Court should hire bounty hunters to track down and bring to justice international fugitives like Joseph Kony who are still hiding out and continuing to commit atrocities in some cases. If these bounty hunters end up committing crimes, then they'll end up in an ICC prison too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SGT_Conti 10/11/17 2:10:20 AM #85:	Who wants to be the first human Spectre --- Posted with GameRaven 3.3 <cite>SGT_Conti posted [p:888212882] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Who wants to be the first human Spectre</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/11/17 2:19:26 AM #86:	SGT_Conti posted... Who wants to be the first human Spectre Haven't seen whatever that is --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888213195] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>SGT_Conti posted...</cite> <quote>Who wants to be the first human Spectre</quote> Haven't seen whatever that is</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wasserpanzer 10/11/17 1:02:34 PM #87:	Sativa_Rose posted... wasserpanzer posted... won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat Easy to just shrug your shoulders and say no one should try anything when you probably live in a very safe country Except that's not at all what I said... lol do you even comprehend bro? --- Pineapples are in my head. http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/muttley1211/bug.gif <cite>wasserpanzer posted [p:888233860] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wasserpanzer posted...</cite> <quote>won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat</quote> Easy to just shrug your shoulders and say no one should try anything when you probably live in a very safe country</quote> Except that's not at all what I said... lol do you even comprehend bro?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/11/17 1:05:27 PM #88:	wasserpanzer posted... Sativa_Rose posted... wasserpanzer posted... won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat Easy to just shrug your shoulders and say no one should try anything when you probably live in a very safe country Except that's not at all what I said... lol do you even comprehend bro? My point was that it's easy to say that it's too hard so it's not worth trying if you aren't one of the ones suffering. It's like if a disease is killing 500,000 people a year and you found a way to save 80,000 of them that it's not worth doing because tons of dying anyways. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888234025] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>wasserpanzer posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wasserpanzer posted...</cite> <quote>won't solve anything, that like putting a bandaid on a slit throat</quote> Easy to just shrug your shoulders and say no one should try anything when you probably live in a very safe country</quote> Except that's not at all what I said... lol do you even comprehend bro?</quote> My point was that it's easy to say that it's too hard so it's not worth trying if you aren't one of the ones suffering. It's like if a disease is killing 500,000 people a year and you found a way to save 80,000 of them that it's not worth doing because tons of dying anyways.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#89	Post #89 was unavailable or deleted.
josifrees 10/11/17 1:19:58 PM #90:	The OP is kinda in line with what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes Did in Sierra Leone and Angola. Basically tens of thousands of ill equipped and untrained rebels get owned by 300 ex-South African special forces members. --- Quit Crying <cite>josifrees posted [p:888234927] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>The OP is kinda in line with what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes Did in Sierra Leone and Angola. Basically tens of thousands of ill equipped and untrained rebels get owned by 300 ex-South African special forces members.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 10/11/17 1:23:10 PM #91:	Doom_Art posted... I'm a general in the Wal-Mart Militia I'm a general in the Target Militia and I am prepared to meet you on the field of battle. You Texarkana punks chose the wrong party in this civil war to back! --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:888235122] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a general in the Wal-Mart Militia </quote> I'm a general in the Target Militia and I am prepared to meet you on the field of battle. You Texarkana punks chose the wrong party in this civil war to back!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SGT_Conti 10/11/17 1:24:26 PM #92:	josifrees posted... The OP is kinda in line with what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes Did in Sierra Leone and Angola. Basically tens of thousands of ill equipped and untrained rebels get owned by 300 ex-South African special forces members. I think TC has mentioned that as essentially being one of his inspirations for this idea. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.3 <cite>SGT_Conti posted [p:888235203] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote>The OP is kinda in line with what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes Did in Sierra Leone and Angola. Basically tens of thousands of ill equipped and untrained rebels get owned by 300 ex-South African special forces members.</quote> I think TC has mentioned that as essentially being one of his inspirations for this idea.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/11/17 1:30:12 PM #93:	SGT_Conti posted... josifrees posted... The OP is kinda in line with what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes Did in Sierra Leone and Angola. Basically tens of thousands of ill equipped and untrained rebels get owned by 300 ex-South African special forces members. I think TC has mentioned that as essentially being one of his inspirations for this idea. Yes, I consider them role models --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888235565] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>SGT_Conti posted...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote>The OP is kinda in line with what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes Did in Sierra Leone and Angola. Basically tens of thousands of ill equipped and untrained rebels get owned by 300 ex-South African special forces members.</quote> I think TC has mentioned that as essentially being one of his inspirations for this idea.</quote> Yes, I consider them role models</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funkdamental 10/11/17 1:52:25 PM #94:	In the end, whoever gets involved purely for profit is unlikely to have many qualms about maximizing it through a few business ventures on the side -- such as stripping a country's natural assets by setting up illegal mining and logging camps under mercenary control, and maybe not being too fussy about conscripting local labour at gunpoint. The idea that you'd be able to keep tighter political control over the conduct of private security companies than of national contingents of armed forces is, I'm afraid, nave. I'd also point out that while UN peacekeeping forces may be slow to get off the ground, this is exactly why mechanisms like the African Standby Force are supposed to be geared towards a rapid deployment timeline of 14 days for urgent interventions (for which a force of 2,500 personnel is envisaged), 30 days for smaller observer missions, and 90 days for larger operations. It's also the case that regional mechanisms like the African Union and ECOWAS have sometimes been early responders to crises -- launching several peace operations in Africa before their missions were handed over to the UN once a measure of stability was restored. Missions include: ECOMOG (Economic Community Ceasefire Monitoring Group), Liberia Aug 1990Jun 1999 c. 3,500 troops Leading institution: ECOWAS AMIB (African Union Mission in Burundi) Apr 2003Jun 2004 c. 3,500 troops Leading institution: AU ECOMIL (Economic Community Mission in Liberia) Sep 2003Oct 2003 c. 3,600 troops Leading institution: ECOWAS AMIS (African Union Mission in Sudan) Oct 2004Dec 2007 c. 3,320 personnel, inc. 2,341 troops, 815 police, civilians Leading institution: AU AMISEC (African Union Mission for Support to the Elections in the Comoros) Mar 2006Jun 2006 462 troops, police, civilians Leading institution: AU AMISOM (African Union Mission in Somalia) Jan 2007ongoing c. 22,126 troops Leading institution: AU MAES (African Union Electoral and Security Assistance Mission to the Comoros) May 2007Oct 2008 c. 160 troops Leading institution: AU UNAMID (United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur) July 2007ongoing c. 19,555 troops, 6,432 police Leading institution: AU/UN RTF-LRA (Regional Task Force of the African Union-led Regional Cooperation Initiative for the Elimination of the Lord's Resistance Army) Mar 2012ongoing c. 5,000 troops Leading institution: AU AFISMA (African-led International Support Mission to Mali) Dec 2012-Jul 2013 c. 9,620 troops, 171 civilians Leading institution: AU/ECOWAS MISCA (African-led International Support Mission to the Central African Republic) Dec 2013Sep 2014 c. 2,475 troops, 1,025 police, 152 civilians Leading institution: AU/ECCAS MNJTF (Multinational Joint Task Force of the Lake Chad Basin Commission against Boko Haram) Jan 2015ongoing c. 8,700 troops Leading institution: LCBC --- Slaughterhouse 5 Cattle 0 <cite>Funkdamental posted [p:888237002] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>In the end, whoever gets involved purely for profit is unlikely to have many qualms about maximizing it through a few business ventures on the side -- such as stripping a country's natural assets by setting up illegal mining and logging camps under mercenary control, and maybe not being too fussy about conscripting local labour at gunpoint. The idea that you'd be able to keep tighter political control over the conduct of private security companies than of national contingents of armed forces is, I'm afraid, nave. I'd also point out that while UN peacekeeping forces may be slow to get off the ground, this is exactly why mechanisms like the African Standby Force are supposed to be geared towards a rapid deployment timeline of 14 days for urgent interventions (for which a force of 2,500 personnel is envisaged), 30 days for smaller observer missions, and 90 days for larger operations. It's also the case that regional mechanisms like the African Union and ECOWAS have sometimes been early responders to crises -- launching several peace operations in Africa before their missions were handed over to the UN once a measure of stability was restored. Missions include: ECOMOG (Economic Community Ceasefire Monitoring Group), Liberia Aug 1990Jun 1999 c. 3,500 troops Leading institution: ECOWAS AMIB (African Union Mission in Burundi) Apr 2003Jun 2004 c. 3,500 troops Leading institution: AU ECOMIL (Economic Community Mission in Liberia) Sep 2003Oct 2003 c. 3,600 troops Leading institution: ECOWAS AMIS (African Union Mission in Sudan) Oct 2004Dec 2007 c. 3,320 personnel, inc. 2,341 troops, 815 police, civilians Leading institution: AU AMISEC (African Union Mission for Support to the Elections in the Comoros) Mar 2006Jun 2006 462 troops, police, civilians Leading institution: AU AMISOM (African Union Mission in Somalia) Jan 2007ongoing c. 22,126 troops Leading institution: AU MAES (African Union Electoral and Security Assistance Mission to the Comoros) May 2007Oct 2008 c. 160 troops Leading institution: AU UNAMID (United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur) July 2007ongoing c. 19,555 troops, 6,432 police Leading institution: AU/UN RTF-LRA (Regional Task Force of the African Union-led Regional Cooperation Initiative for the Elimination of the Lord's Resistance Army) Mar 2012ongoing c. 5,000 troops Leading institution: AU AFISMA (African-led International Support Mission to Mali) Dec 2012-Jul 2013 c. 9,620 troops, 171 civilians Leading institution: AU/ECOWAS MISCA (African-led International Support Mission to the Central African Republic) Dec 2013Sep 2014 c. 2,475 troops, 1,025 police, 152 civilians Leading institution: AU/ECCAS MNJTF (Multinational Joint Task Force of the Lake Chad Basin Commission against Boko Haram) Jan 2015ongoing c. 8,700 troops Leading institution: LCBC</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 10/11/17 1:54:25 PM #95:	Hideo Kojima is a God damn genius --- Posted with GameRaven 3.3 <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:888237107] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Hideo Kojima is a God damn genius</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Looked gf 10/11/17 2:00:26 PM #96:	Okay but what happens when Kevin Spacey's corporation grows too big and uses his private military to declare war on the United Nations? --- http://i.imgur.com/otLaOxa.gifv <cite>Looked gf posted [p:888237471] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Okay but what happens when Kevin Spacey's corporation grows too big and uses his private military to declare war on the United Nations?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SGT_Conti 10/11/17 2:13:44 PM #97:	Funkdamental posted... In the end, whoever gets involved purely for profit is unlikely to have many qualms about maximizing it through a few business ventures on the side TC's hypothetical mercenary company operates on a non-profit basis. Sativa_Rose posted... I personally think this idea has a lot of merit, particularly if you do some research on this not-widely-discussed topic into companies like Executive Outcomes that were very successful in fighting terrible rebel groups in both Angola and Sierra Leone in the 1990s. One issue there was that it was a for-profit company, which meant that it could only intervene if they were reasonably sure they would end up being paid what they were promised. Having a high net worth individual or charitable organization who funds the operation could eliminate that issue. He also cites the Giving Pledge as a counter to this being an impractical venture for anyone to undertake. --- "I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." <cite>SGT_Conti posted [p:888238340] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funkdamental posted...</cite> <quote>In the end, whoever gets involved purely for profit is unlikely to have many qualms about maximizing it through a few business ventures on the side</quote> TC's hypothetical mercenary company operates on a non-profit basis. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>I personally think this idea has a lot of merit, particularly if you do some research on this not-widely-discussed topic into companies like Executive Outcomes that were very successful in fighting terrible rebel groups in both Angola and Sierra Leone in the 1990s. One issue there was that it was a for-profit company, which meant that it could only intervene if they were reasonably sure they would end up being paid what they were promised. Having a high net worth individual or charitable organization who funds the operation could eliminate that issue.</quote> He also cites the Giving Pledge as a counter to this being an impractical venture for anyone to undertake.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funkdamental 10/11/17 2:13:49 PM #98:	Oh, and to make some kind of difference in Rwanda during the genocide wouldn't have required anything special. There were a number of options available to the Clinton administration -- relatively low-cost attempts that it could have made to at least disrupt the organization of the massacres, even if these attempts wouldn't have involved anything as exciting as a Special Ops force of invincible fighting men dropped behind FAR lines. None of them were tried, simply because there was no political will. --- Slaughterhouse 5 Cattle 0 <cite>Funkdamental posted [p:888238347] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote>Oh, and to make some kind of difference in Rwanda during the genocide wouldn't have required anything special. There were a number of options available to the Clinton administration -- relatively low-cost attempts that it could have made to at least disrupt the organization of the massacres, even if these attempts wouldn't have involved anything as exciting as a Special Ops force of invincible fighting men dropped behind FAR lines. None of them were tried, simply because there was no political will.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 10/11/17 3:25:10 PM #99:	Funkdamental posted... None of them were tried, simply because there was no political will. This strengthens my argument. In fact, this pretty much is my entire argument. It's not that a private military force has access to more elite troops or something that the normal military doesn't. It's about political will. This force could intervene in a place like Rwanda regardless of what US politicians decide is most politically convenient for them. Also, about your previous comment about a mercenary company deciding to stay their to illegally exploit resources to maximize profits, remember that all international law still applies even in the case of this being done by a for-profit corporation. The law is the same regardless of whether or not it's being done by a for-profit or a non-profit. As for all that international cooperation between national militaries, I think it's great. This isn't meant to replace that. It's something that could be a supplement to that. In fact, that's exactly what STTEP International did by assisting Nigeria in the fight against Boko Haram. In 3 months, they pushed Boko Haram out of their seized territories and into hiding, forcing them into an underground insurgency when previously they were acting out in the open in certain regions of Nigeria. The guy who runs this company is the same guy who founded Executive Outcomes. His name is Eeben Barlow and he is one of the world's leading experts in guerilla warfare. Personally, I think it's fantastic that governments in need are able to hire someone like him when they are dealing with terrible insurgencies like Boko Haram. --- I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister. <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:888242476] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funkdamental posted...</cite> <quote> None of them were tried, simply because there was no political will.</quote> This strengthens my argument. In fact, this pretty much is my entire argument. It's not that a private military force has access to more elite troops or something that the normal military doesn't. It's about political will. This force could intervene in a place like Rwanda regardless of what US politicians decide is most politically convenient for them. Also, about your previous comment about a mercenary company deciding to stay their to illegally exploit resources to maximize profits, remember that all international law still applies even in the case of this being done by a for-profit corporation. The law is the same regardless of whether or not it's being done by a for-profit or a non-profit. As for all that international cooperation between national militaries, I think it's great. This isn't meant to replace that. It's something that could be a supplement to that. In fact, that's exactly what STTEP International did by assisting Nigeria in the fight against Boko Haram. In 3 months, they pushed Boko Haram out of their seized territories and into hiding, forcing them into an underground insurgency when previously they were acting out in the open in certain regions of Nigeria. The guy who runs this company is the same guy who founded Executive Outcomes. His name is Eeben Barlow and he is one of the world's leading experts in guerilla warfare. Personally, I think it's fantastic that governments in need are able to hire someone like him when they are dealing with terrible insurgencies like Boko Haram.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 10/11/17 11:34:13 PM #100:	fenderbender321 posted... Dash_Harber posted... This is literally just militarizing corporations. Can you imagine The Wal-Mart Armed Forces? What oversight committee is going to tell them which genocides to stop and which not to? How do we stop them from just sending them into places that would benefit their corporation? Suddenly they have to stop a 'genocide' in some third world backwater, that also just happened to recently change their labor laws to prevent Wal-Mart from hiring dirt poor workers at pennies on the dollar. Why would Wal-Mart decide to get into the military industry? And if they did, why would people donate money to their military if it isn't being used for their benefit? To protect corporate interest. Why does anyone get into the war business? Successful companies branch out into mindcrushingly weird combinations all the time. It wasn't long ago that Amazon sold books exclusively. Nintendo started out manufacturing playing cards. Mitsubishi was a shipping company. But either way, here is the problems; - The privatized military would be dependent on the whims of benefactors. It's not even what they are prevented from doing. What is their point in helping anyone if it doesn't directly benefit them? If they have financial interests in one country, but not the other, whats to stop them from ignoring the problems of the other country? - International law and country law can conflict. The government can sanction genocide or other war crimes. Entire regimes have been built on this principle. More importantly, most international agreements actually don't allow foreign armies to intervene in territory outside their own without an official declaration of war (privatized, or not). - Every country would just keep their military instead of being dependent on the whims of a corporate entity. There is a reason that governments have a monopoly on violence. To do otherwise is basically saying, "okay, lobbyists are cool and all, but what if we just let people directly buy public policy?". Also, where are you getting all these soldiers from? Are corporate armies suddenly going to show up in towns like Wal-Marts with mini-training centers? What if they all just decide they don't need to pay their soldiers? Who is going to stop them? - You can say "international law" until you are blue in the face, but with 0 oversight committee to oversee it, they have carte blanche to do what they want. They don't answer to anyone. What if your boss gave you a set of rules, but legally could not enforce you to follow them. You could show up when and where you wanted, do what you want, and he was not allowed to fire you and you never had to report to him. Now imagine your job was the security and well being of entire nations. If that isn't reason enough to see this is a horrible idea, I don't know what will convince you. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:888270483] in The use of... [t:75863340]...</cite> <quote><cite>fenderbender321 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote>This is literally just militarizing corporations. Can you imagine The Wal-Mart Armed Forces? What oversight committee is going to tell them which genocides to stop and which not to? How do we stop them from just sending them into places that would benefit their corporation? Suddenly they have to stop a 'genocide' in some third world backwater, that also just happened to recently change their labor laws to prevent Wal-Mart from hiring dirt poor workers at pennies on the dollar.</quote> Why would Wal-Mart decide to get into the military industry? And if they did, why would people donate money to their military if it isn't being used for their benefit?</quote> To protect corporate interest. Why does anyone get into the war business? Successful companies branch out into mindcrushingly weird combinations all the time. It wasn't long ago that Amazon sold books exclusively. Nintendo started out manufacturing playing cards. Mitsubishi was a shipping company. But either way, here is the problems; - The privatized military would be dependent on the whims of benefactors. It's not even what they are prevented from doing. What is their point in helping anyone if it doesn't directly benefit them? If they have financial interests in one country, but not the other, whats to stop them from ignoring the problems of the other country? - International law and country law can conflict. The government can sanction genocide or other war crimes. Entire regimes have been built on this principle. More importantly, most international agreements actually don't allow foreign armies to intervene in territory outside their own without an official declaration of war (privatized, or not). - Every country would just keep their military instead of being dependent on the whims of a corporate entity. There is a reason that governments have a monopoly on violence. To do otherwise is basically saying, "okay, lobbyists are cool and all, but what if we just let people directly buy public policy?". Also, where are you getting all these soldiers from? Are corporate armies suddenly going to show up in towns like Wal-Marts with mini-training centers? What if they all just decide they don't need to pay their soldiers? Who is going to stop them? - You can say "international law" until you are blue in the face, but with 0 oversight committee to oversee it, they have carte blanche to do what they want. They don't answer to anyone. What if your boss gave you a set of rules, but legally could not enforce you to follow them. You could show up when and where you wanted, do what you want, and he was not allowed to fire you and you never had to report to him. Now imagine your job was the security and well being of entire nations. If that isn't reason enough to see this is a horrible idea, I don't know what will convince you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > The use of private military (or mercenaries) as a means for World Peace (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > The use of private military (or mercenaries) as a means for World Peace