US use of "soldiers of fortune"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

spmetla, You are right, I did in no way mean that US army toss in grandes first whenever entering a house.... And yes, knocking on the door is the method most commonly used;)

However, let's just say that there are times when an american trooper have more free hands to do as he please than, say, an austrian or a swede.

---

However this does not equate to murder now does it. Soldier's perform combat operations - and in combat operations people get killed. Now as any soldier knows combat operations in any urban environment are extremely dangerous and the risk to civilians is great. Calling this unfortunate aspect of urban combat murder is placing a label that does not do the soldier any fairness.

Most combat vets to include myself attempt to minimize the deaths of civilians. Only one operation I know of during Iraq comes close to violating this committment that most soldiers in that I served with attempt to live up to. And even that was done by individual soldiers/officers and from what I have read and heard those individuals have been brought up for courts martial. So while your entitled to your opinion, calling soldiers murders is extreme and demonstrates a foolish position.

Quote:

---

IF mercs would be held responcible I would have less of a problem with it.

I still would not like it though, for already mentioned reasons.

---

I detest Mercs even more then you, but I refrain from labeling soldiers as murderers until they have violated the Rules of War. Can you say the same? Or are you just another individual who can not tell the difference between what happens in an Urban Combat Operation and when troops violate the law? (I say this given your own statements about Combat and the terms that you use, its inconsistent)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Evil_Maniac From Mars, so... price before morale and laws, huh?


spmetla, You are right, I did in no way mean that US army toss in grandes first whenever entering a house.... And yes, knocking on the door is the method most commonly used;)

However, let's just say that there are times when an american trooper have more free hands to do as he please than, say, an austrian or a swede.

---

I'd say that's part of the reason that most UN forces are considered powerless. The French in Lebanon are an example, they have armor, infantry, and all sorts of equipment yet they do nothing against Israeli aircraft which fly into Lebanon and nothing against Hezbollah which is illegally rearming and has actually disarmed French peacekeepers.

If UN forces acted more like Russia did in Georgia and like India just did in the Congo then perhaps it would be more effective.

Having said that, I'd say an Austrian or Swede is just as likely as a US soldier to get processed for his or her actions. Austria and Sweden do not however do much 'peacekeeping' and have thankfully not needed to fight a war in quite a long time, especially for Sweden. If the Austrian and Swedish contingent of Eurfor in Chad were given free reign to actually take on rebel forces there or protect Darfur refugees from Sudanese forces then perhaps they'd be facing moral crises like US soldiers must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

However this does not equate to murder now does it. Soldier's perform combat operations - and in combat operations people get killed. Now as any soldier knows combat operations in any urban environment are extremely dangerous and the risk to civilians is great. Calling this unfortunate aspect of urban combat murder is placing a label that does not do the soldier any fairness.

Most combat vets to include myself attempt to minimize the deaths of civilians. Only one operation I know of during Iraq comes close to violating this committment that most soldiers in that I served with attempt to live up to. And even that was done by individual soldiers/officers and from what I have read and heard those individuals have been brought up for courts martial. So while your entitled to your opinion, calling soldiers murders is extreme and demonstrates a foolish position.


I detest Mercs even more then you, but I refrain from labeling soldiers as murderers until they have violated the Rules of War. Can you say the same? Or are you just another individual who can not tell the difference between what happens in an Urban Combat Operation and when troops violate the law? (I say this given your own statements about Combat and the terms that you use, its inconsistent)

---

I do not believe U.S. soldiers are generally murderers or seek to be such. But, laws and regulations are needed to ensure that behavior or tendency in some individuals is controlled or, as last resort, penalized and dealt with.

Legal immunity for private people doing some of the same jobs, at better pay, is horrible. And I've heard many resentful stories from guys who've served in the armed forces about Blackwater, and I don't blame them. I'd rather all that money go to the troops, either in care, better equipment, better pay, better benefits, sign on bonuses, whatever. Not to what is, legally, just a privately hired set of thugs who don't answer to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I do not believe U.S. soldiers are generally murderers or seek to be such. But, laws and regulations are needed to ensure that behavior or tendency in some individuals is controlled or, as last resort, penalized and dealt with.

---

Those laws and regulations exist - its called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Rules of Engagement as established by the Chain of Command, (think high level). So I would suggest reading that document - its a fairly big one and easy to find on the Internet. Now if your arguement is that those laws and regulations should be enforced to the standards mentioned within the UCMJ
and other Military doctrine and regulation manuals - your going to have to mention specific exambles.

Quote:

---

Legal immunity for private people doing some of the same jobs, at better pay, is horrible. And I've heard many resentful stories from guys who've served in the armed forces about Blackwater, and I don't blame them. I'd rather all that money go to the troops, either in care, better equipment, better pay, better benefits, sign on bonuses, whatever. Not to what is, legally, just a privately hired set of thugs who don't answer to anyone.

---

Hince the statement I made about detesting Mercs greater then even Kadagar. When I was in we called them cowboys and tried to have nothing to do with them. Now my younger brother has to deal with them again and he detests them with an even greater passion then I do. So if Kadagar limited his comments to the sorry state of using Mercs I would have a tendency to either agree with his arguement or just stay silent, but calling soldier's murderer's as a generalization is beneath comtempt especially from someone that claims to have served.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Those laws and regulations exist - its called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Rules of Engagement as established by the Chain of Command, (thing high level). So I would suggest reading that document - its a fairly big one and easy to find on the Internet.

---

Uh, I wasn't say they didn't have a code. I was laying out why having a code is important, and contrasting to why Blackwater and private contractors not having one like the U.S. military is not a good thing.

Quote:

---

Hince the statement I made about detesting Mercs greater then even Kadagar. When I was in we called them cowboys and tried to have nothing to do with them. Now my younger brother has to deal with them again and he detests them with an even greater passion then I do. So if Kadagar limited his comments to the sorry state of using Mercs I would have a tendency to either agree with his arguement or just stay silent, but calling soldier's murderer's as a generalization is beneath comtempt especially from someone that claims to have served.

---

I agree calling the troops murderers would not be accurate. I did however share his disagreement with Kukri that they COULDN'T commit murder. Killing the enemy and killing unarmed women are not the same thing and of course, the existing code already recognizes this. For soldiers in uniform, at least.

Redleg, Right and wrong. What is murder in one country isnt in the next. I DO however 100% agree with you that the average GI Joe does his best to avoid civilian casualties.

However, if you read up on the tactics used in Falluja, you will see that the difference between mass murder and urban combat sometimes is.... very small indeed.

As an example, calling in airstrikes on a mob where maybe one out of 50 is carrying a weapon. Mass murder or valid combat doctrine?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Don't get me wrong though, I know the morale dilemmas. A good friend of mine, no matter nationality, was defending a base. Some APCs were heading straight for said base, on the APCs sat children, forced/lured to be there. There was no way the base could pack up and leave in time, so my friend had to order his men to open fire on the APCs. As a side reason, if the enemy would have learnt that putting kids on APCs makes them safe from UN attack, then, well, a whole lot MORE kids would die in the long run. My friend however was traumatised and resigned the same day, he later treid to adopt one of the kids, having one leg less after the attack. Did he murder those kids, well, I would say no. So yes I do see the moral differences, however, I do mean that a soldier also can murder. I would rather have marksmen take out the one with weapons in a mob, even if it means one or two marksmen would probably die for sticking their heads up. That's war.

However, that is about the US army, this thread is about mercs.

My reasoning is BASED on US troops acting more controlled than mercs, so no disagreement there.


spmetla, one big difference is that Sweden and austria send so few men, that we can choose only to send the elite. They have a couple of years and braincells more than the average american soldier. So yes, might change if we had to see real action.

I am not sure more control is bad though... I prefer too much control over to little... Not fun for the men on the field though.

Redleg, from wikipedia on falluja.

Quote:

---

On April 3, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force received a written command from the Joint Task Force, ordering offensive operations against Fallujah. This order went against the wishes of the Marine Commanders on the ground who wanted to conduct surgical strikes and raids against those suspected of involvement in the Blackwater deaths.[25]

On the night of April 4, the US forces launched a major assault in an attempt to "re-establish security in Fallujah" by encirling it with around 2000 troops.[24][1] At least four homes were hit in aerial strikes, and there was sporadic gunfire throughout the night.

---

Again, I like the Marine Corps code of honour. Even they were against what happened. Blackwater had a LOT to do with this operation though, thus, when I talked about the "murder" of Falluja I actually wanted to point my finger at Blackwater, not the Marine Corps.

Blackwater pushed the politicians into hasty, ill planned decisions. The Marines unfortunately were the one having to follow Blackwater directives.

I am however aware I did not be clear about that in my OP. However, AGAIN, I have nothing against the Marines. It is mercs I highly dislike. And the political power they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Redleg, Right and wrong. What is murder in one country isnt in the next. I DO however 100% agree with you that the average GI Joe does his best to avoid civilian casualties.

---

Then why the label? Murder has a legal definition that is consistent throughout the Western world, so I don't buy that arguement as a legitment stance.

Quote:

---

However, if you read up on the tactics used in Falluja, you will see that the difference between mass murder and urban combat sometimes is.... very small indeed.

---

You obviousily missed the statement "Only one operation I know of during Iraq comes close to violating this committment that most soldiers in that I served with attempt to live up to. And even that was done by individual soldiers/officers and from what I have read and heard those individuals have been brought up for courts martial. "

Quote:

---

As an example, calling in airstrikes on a mob where maybe one out of 50 is carrying a weapon. Mass murder or valid combat doctrine?

---

Now one would have to provide the exact event and the details around it. Somilia airstrikes were called on just such an event - and while not every one was armed - most had the intent to attack.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Don't get me wrong though, I know the morale dilemmas. A good friend of mine, no matter nationality, was defending a base. Some APCs were heading straight for said base, on the APCs sat children, forced/lured to be there. There was no way the base could pack up and leave in time, so my friend had to order his men to open fire on the APCs. As a side reason, if the enemy would have learnt that putting kids on APCs makes them safe from UN attack, then, well, a whole lot MORE kids would die in the long run. My friend however was traumatised and resigned the same day, he later treid to adopt one of the kids, having one leg less after the attack. Did he murder those kids, well, I would say no. So yes I do see the moral differences, however, I do mean that a soldier also can murder. I would rather have marksmen take out the one with weapons in a mob, even if it means one or two marksmen would probably die for sticking their heads up. That's war.

Quote:

---

However, that is about the US army, this thread is about mercs.

My reasoning is BASED on US troops acting more controlled than mercs, so no disagreement there.

---

And again why the use of labeling combat soldiers as murderers. Are some guilty of that crime - sure, but your making a specific claim and generalizing them all into that catergory. And by your own arguement you seemly understand the difference. So are you being disengous (SP) or as some stated just plain anti-american. If it's something else then please state so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Redleg, from wikipedia on falluja.



Again, I like the Marine Corps code of honour. Even they were against what happened. Blackwater had a LOT to do with this operation though, thus, when I talked about the "murder" of Falluja I actually wanted to point my finger at Blackwater, not the Marine Corps.

Blackwater pushed the politicians into hasty, ill planned decisions. The Marines unfortunately were the one having to follow Blackwater directives.

I am however aware I did not be clear about that in my OP. However, AGAIN, I have nothing against the Marines. It is mercs I highly dislike. And the political power they have.

---

I know all about falluja the event that is questionable is the steering of men back into Falluja that attempt to flee as non-combatants that was reported Now while you can question the operational "smartness" of the operation - which is indeed highly suspect, that by itself does not consitute what your attempting to protray. If you want to address the possible violation of the Rules of War address the issue that checkpoints were established not to detain non-combatants that were fleeing but from what I have read actually turned them back toward the combat zone. Now I dont know if anything actually developed from this issue because I lost track of the event because of a family crisis that took a while to resolve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Uh, I wasn't say they didn't have a code. I was laying out why having a code is important, and contrasting to why Blackwater and private contractors not having one like the U.S. military is not a good thing.

---

Then I misread the statement, to mean that you thought more regulation was needed.

Quote:

---

I agree calling the troops murderers would not be accurate. I did however share his disagreement with Kukri that they COULDN'T commit murder. Killing the enemy and killing unarmed women are not the same thing and of course, the existing code already recognizes this. For soldiers in uniform, at least.

---

Soldiers indeed have been charged with unlawful killings in Iraq. Now I dont know if the military went as far as charging them with murder, but charges indeed have been filed and individuals convicted in a Courts Martial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then I misread the statement, to mean that you thought more regulation was needed.



Soldiers indeed have been charged with unlawful killings in Iraq. Now I dont know if the military went as far as charging them with murder, but charges indeed have been filed and individuals convicted in a Courts Martial.

---

From what I read it sounds like we agree perfectly on this issue. Did you ever think it would happen? :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

From what I read it sounds like we agree perfectly on this issue. Did you ever think it would happen? :help:

---

Probably because you incorrectly assumed I was a republican - I am a strict constitutionist, which would indicate that mercs are not to be detested out of principle. That and I detest them for the cowboys that they are.

There, edited OP, "murdered" is now "slaughtered" to avoid derailing.

:focus:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Probably because you incorrectly assumed I was a republican - I am a strict constitutionist, which would indicate that mercs are not to be detested out of principle. That and I detest them for the cowboys that they are.

---

I had no idea what your party was, all I knew was that I would never vote for it. ;)

And I hate to defend Blackwater, but those Mercs were killed delivering food from a catering company, if I recall.

And to Phantom Fury, this was an attack on a known insurgent stronghold. Houses, Mosques etc. were in fact holding insurgents and weapons. The collateral damage was unavoidable in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I had no idea what your party was, all I knew was that I would never vote for it. ;)

---

Good thing there is no party for me then.. But why would you have a problem with anyone that supported the document that is the foundation of the nation. For instance try reading the document concerning the legislative powers.

It applies in part to the discussion we are having here.

Well I guess the most I can do is accept the differing opinions on mercs. I support their use but not their legal immunity.

I'll try and reserve anymore tangents on the UN and such for other threads.

Quote:

---

And I hate to defend Blackwater, but those Mercs were killed delivering food from a catering company, if I recall.

---

I believe they were unarmed at the time as well.

Also, changing murder to slaughter only pisses me off more so I think I'll make like Panzerjaeger and leave the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Good thing there is no party for me then.. But why would you have a problem with anyone that supported the document that is the foundation of the nation. For instance try reading the document concerning the legislative powers.

It applies in part to the discussion we are having here.

---

Because, as I have stated in other discussions, aside from a very tiny miniscule minority of the population who are dedicated Constitutional scholars and share a pure constitution viewpoint, it is generally only employed as a justification for surgical application to befit specific agendas or ideologies. A very general example would be how Republicans whined about states rights for years, and then when getting the White House and a majority of Congress, suddenly believed in Federal power.

Accidental Double Mint Power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Because, as I have stated in other discussions, aside from a very tiny miniscule minority of the population who are dedicated Constitutional scholars and share a pure constitution viewpoint, it is generally only employed as a justification for surgical application to befit specific agendas or ideologies. A very general example would be how Republicans whined about states rights for years, and then when getting the White House and a majority of Congress, suddenly believed in Federal power.

---

That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) forbade the US Government from using Pinkerton National Detective Agency employees, or similar private police companies. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute as forbidding the US Government's employing companies offering mercenary, quasi-military forces for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978).

---

Dont confuse Republicans for constitutionists, since neither party truely follows that path any longer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.

---

I'm against mercs for ethical, moral and legal reasons. And because I believe their use is counterproductive both to our armed forces and to our goal in Iraq. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist because strict Constitutionalism allowed a lot of nasty stuff like slavery and I'm not going to sell my soul to following the Constitution even if I believe that following the letter of the framework it outlines means doing unethical things.

But, we can always not hammer a dead horse and just say "we are against mercs for different reasons but we're both against mercs." I'm sorry if that is an irritant to you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

papewaio, Indeed. As I said, murders are quite common in wars.

---

Actually I maintain that it is possible for a solider to murder not that it is common.

The hand grenade incident I was referring by the way was the My Lai Massacre... abnormal enough that it caused a court martial. Interesting part of it that for some reason leaving the military absolves one of all war crimes committed while in service... I'm sure the Nazi's in the Nuremburg trials and the Japanese Imperial soldiers in the Tokyo trials had wished that rule of law known to them.

So I don't think that murders happen very often. I do think that a double standard is applied depending if you are prosecuting ones own vs another. That is a very human thing to do. And on top of that cover ups do happen, and even when exposed there is always pardons and the like.

IMDHO the troops generally do the right thing. It is the law and the attempts to go by the letter to skirt justice by higher up in the command particularly the politicians who beat the drums of war that needs to be addressed more closely.

Meh, if they don't behave in Iraq, then the Iraqi police should arrest them and put them on trial for what they did. In what way are they immune to that? I mean if I smuggled drugs to Indonesia and they caught me I couldn't just say "I'm a german citizen, I'm immune", could I? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I'm against mercs for ethical, moral and legal reasons. And because I believe their use is counterproductive both to our armed forces and to our goal in Iraq. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist because strict Constitutionalism allowed a lot of nasty stuff like slavery and I'm not going to sell my soul to following the Constitution even if I believe that following the letter of the framework it outlines means doing unethical things.

---

Then you have a poor understanding of the document, because it allows for change based upon the times, hince the amendment process. Since its a changeable document a constitutionist doesn't desire that the document doesn't change, only that the change is done in accordance with the document. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't understand the document themselves.

Your will be hard pressed to find it in the document itself, as a Federal policy to allow slaverly, it allowed for the states themselves to decide. It futher was ammended to not allow for slaverly so I find this postion about unethical stances rather interesting since your applying your ethics of today to the ethics of people in the 1780's. To completely different time periods and standards

Quote:

---

But, we can always not hammer a dead horse and just say "we are against mercs for different reasons but we're both against mercs." I'm sorry if that is an irritant to you. ;)

---

Not an irritant at all, but it seems to be one for you. If you havent learned by now, statements such as this are rather :dizzy2:

When someone offer you his hand...... .... ... .... ...... ...... ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then you have a poor understanding of the document, because it allows for change based upon the times, hince the amendment process. Since its a changeable document a constitutionist doesn't desire that the document doesn't change, only that the change is done in accordance with the document. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't understand the document themselves.

Your will be hard pressed to find it in the document itself, as a Federal policy to allow slaverly, it allowed for the states themselves to decide. It futher was ammended to not allow for slaverly so I find this postion about unethical stances rather interesting since your applying your ethics of today to the ethics of people in the 1780's. To completely different time periods and standards



Not an irritant at all, but it seems to be one for you. If you havent learned by now, statements such as this are rather :dizzy2:

---

Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.

Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.

---

Appling your ethics on the issue is fine, however your own arguement is self-defeating here. The constitution itself is a working document which allows for the time to change the document. Yes there were slave holders that encouraged the document to initially leave out the part that slaverly was wrong. We fought a major war over that issue and corrected the document to reflect the fact that it was wrong. Attempting to claim an ethical stance about killing muslims or shoting gay people, both which violate not only the main body of the document but also several amendments is again a false arguement. Do you have such little understanding of the document itself that you believe that its a bad document for setting up the standards of the government?

Quote:

---

Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.

---

The law is how societies allow themselves to be governed. So again where did I say the law is the be all end all of anything.

Your again reaching for a position that I did not take

the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.

---

Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.

---

Hince the document has the ability to be adjusted by the amendment process.

Right and wrong is an ethical issue and a moral issue based upon the laws that the government passes. The constitution provides the framework for which the government is to function. Since I dont claim that the document is perfect only that its the foundation of our basic ability to govern our nation and which our laws are formulated from.

In fact the constitution protects your right to protest on the actions of the government that you fill is a violation of doing something right.

Which allows the constitutional process work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Evil_Maniac From Mars, so... price before morale and laws, huh?

---

Answered with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Now, as they don't belong to the official army, they do not have to follow the laws of war set by the Geneva convention.

---

So, what laws? Are there laws saying that mercenaries cannot be hired by the state? If so, I would be much obliged if you could point them out. There is nothing wrong with mercenaries as long as they are efficient, disciplined, and cost-effective.