US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Papewaio]

Professional soldiers are volunteers. As long as they are part of a countries armed forces they are not mercenaries. It would pay (pun intended) for you to get your definitions right. Nor does getting paid negate their right to life. Mercenaries get paid not to die but to protect people and objects.

Civilians get all the fruits of conquest and the benefit of not having in general to put their lives on the line. Soldiers and Civilians are equal citizens and as humans have equal right to life.

[Proletariat]

In this instance, putting the lives of enemy civilians over the lives of your own soldiers (citizens) is preposterous.

American Military actions must serve the lives of Americans first. Doing otherwise would be ineffectual at best, and treasonous at worst.

[Ser Clegane]

In this instance, putting the lives of enemy civilians over the lives of your own soldiers (citizens) is preposterous.

Enemy civilians?

How did they earn this status? Do Iraqi civilians in general count as enemies or only if they happen to be co-located with terrorists and/or insurgents?

[Adrian II]

Enemy civilians?

By 'enemy civilians' Proletariat means those civilians who are being liberated by the United States. Liberated from their homes, their families, even from their lives if they happen to be in the wrong place. Strange enough, Saddam Hussein happened to be in the right place when they caught him. He is given a fair trial in his own country. Well, at least he is given a trial. Well sort of. At least he's on tv, so I reckon they didn't gas him in some village or put electrodes on his balls and kick him to death in a secret facility. Yet.

[Watchman]

You seem to be mucking around with technicalities again, Redleg. As if those were ever the point of the whole issue.

I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.

However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...

[Redleg]

You seem to be mucking around with technicalities again, Redleg. As if those were ever the point of the whole issue.

Not technicalities at all - but facts. Try it sometimes versus the hyperbole of calling soldiers mercs.

I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.

and you would be correct

However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...

You might want to go back and read what was stated by the State Department - they did far worse then attempt to deny it - however again the issue is not what happen in Fallujah - but what happen on the outskirts which all of you have missed but one. And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.

[Watchman]

And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.

...
...uh, would you care to elaborate this ? I must've missed something.

And since when was considering the burning of civilians to death with WP (intentionally or accidentally) to be a bad thing "far left rhetoric" ? Sounds more like basic human decency to me...

[Proletariat]

By 'enemy civilians' Proletariat means those civilians who are being liberated by the United States. Liberated from their homes, their families, even from their lives if they happen to be in the wrong place. Strange enough, Saddam Hussein happened to be in the right place when they caught him. He is given a fair trial in his own country. Well, at least he is given a trial. Well sort of. At least he's on tv, so I reckon they didn't gas him in some village or put electrodes on his balls and kick him to death in a secret facility. Yet.

Sajida al-Rishawi was more what I was thinking. I can't wait until she's hooked up to some fake electric chairs and has a lion roar at her while staying in a Romanian gulag.

[Watchman]

Do we really need to know your dubious tastes ?

[Watchman]

In my books fighting in return for payment (as opposed to, say, legal obligation) amounts to "mercenaries". The semantics of the matter don't particularly interest me.

I won't contest the thing about all humans having an equal right to live, but that was never the issue anyway.

Be they volunteers or mercenaries, however, the point is that unlike for example the hapless civilian population of, say, Fallujah the soldiers have chosen to embark on a potentionally quite dangerous career, and if you ask me this makes them to a fair degree responsible for any loss of life or limb that might happen. IMHO this also means they are to a degree responsible for not endangering the likes of civilians, sort of like how truck drivers are expected not to endanger pedestrians.

[Proletariat]

In my books fighting in return for payment (as opposed to, say, legal obligation) amounts to "mercenaries". The semantics of the matter don't particularly interest me.

So your books say that only those who fight for free escape the definition mercenary?

Mercenary

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2 Hired for service in a foreign army.

[Watchman]

Never said that, did I ?

[Proletariat]

No, but what you're saying doesn't make sense to me, nor does it jive with the definition of a mercenary.

US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.

[Watchman]

US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.

By my definitions they are, because pretty much the whole US military is essentially a mercenary outfit. The same goes for any professional army.

You see, I divide armies to about three categories based on their recruiting method. Mercenaries are those whose soldiers have no external obligation to serve, but are rewarded for their services in some fashion by their masters (that professional national armies serve only a single, fixed paymaster is of no consequence here). Conscripts are those serving due to external obligation to their masters, and usually also salaried - but this is by no means automatic. The final category aren't really armies at all (proper, organized armies fall to either of the previous categories) but irregular forces, whose members are neither obliged nor paid by their masters to fight but do so purely for their own reasons.

Of course, the above categories are by no means set in stone or final - conscript armies invariably have a corps of salaried full-time professionals, mercenary armies may find themselves obliged to become conscript armies due to circumstances (think the British in WW1), and irregulars may fill their ranks by forcibly recruiting new members or hiring people or get established enough to "graduate" into either of the two categories. And of course badly mauled mercenary or conscript armies may dissolve into irregular forces - this at least partially happened in Iraq, for example.

Obviously what motivates (or doesn't) individual soldiers in any army has no part in this typology, due to the simple fact that it can A) be externally manipulated B) comes in such a dizzying number of permutations as to be a functionally meaningless mess; the criteria is the primary source of new recruits.

[Papewaio]

By my definitions they are, because pretty much the whole US military is essentially a mercenary outfit. The same goes for any professional army.

You see, I divide armies to about three categories based on their recruiting method. Mercenaries are those whose soldiers have no external obligation to serve, but are rewarded for their services in some fashion by their masters (that professional national armies serve only a single, fixed paymaster is of no consequence here). Conscripts are those serving due to external obligation to their masters, and usually also salaried - but this is by no means automatic. The final category aren't really armies at all (proper, organized armies fall to either of the previous categories) but irregular forces, whose members are neither obliged nor paid by their masters to fight but do so purely for their own reasons.

Of course, the above categories are by no means set in stone or final - conscript armies invariably have a corps of salaried full-time professionals, mercenary armies may find themselves obliged to become conscript armies due to circumstances (think the British in WW1), and irregulars may fill their ranks by forcibly recruiting new members or hiring people or get established enough to "graduate" into either of the two categories. And of course badly mauled mercenary or conscript armies may dissolve into irregular forces - this at least partially happened in Iraq, for example.

Obviously what motivates (or doesn't) individual soldiers in any army has no part in this typology, due to the simple fact that it can A) be externally manipulated B) comes in such a dizzying number of permutations as to be a functionally meaningless mess; the criteria is the primary source of new recruits.

I'm quoting you in full to make sure you don't edit on the fly.

Making up your own definitions as you go is not a valid way to prove anything.

Mercs serve anyone for money. Volunteer soldiers serve their country. They are a form of public servant. Mercs are private contractors who serve corporate interests in general.

Volunteer soldiers are normally held in higher esteem then conscripts, while mercs are seen in the same light as pirates, brigands and CEOs.

[Tribesman]

OK - how about some facts?

Do you have any numbers from this WP attack or any other WP attack that would show that poisoning is indeed the primary effect of this weapon?

Primary effect ? where did I say it was the primary effect ?
Hey , just pointing out a previous historical incident of secondary effects Clegane ,
Besides which WP is for smoke/target marking , fire starting is a secondary effect , toxic poisoning from inhalation is a secondary secondary effect , burning on the other hand would be a primary secondary effect of smoke markers .
Then again it wasn't being used for marking was it , "shake and bake" is described by the US forces as Phsycological warfare .


US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.
Certainly not , but it was the death of 4 mercenaries in Fallujah that triggered the assault .

[Hurin_Rules]

So your books say that only those who fight for free escape the definition mercenary?

Mercenary

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

So those Americans who only signed up for the Army so they could get money for college are all mercenaries?

Then a heck of a lot of US soldiers are clearly mercenaries.

[Watchman]

Haven't I been saying for quite a while now that so far as I'm concerned professional armies are essentially mercenary ones ?

Not a big deal as such as far as I'm concerned, though - I do not consider the substantive "mercenary" to have particular moral or ethical baggage attached. IMO that's just one type of soldier among many.

"Mercenary" used as an adjective has its obvious negative connotations, though.

[Proletariat]

So those Americans who only signed up for the Army so they could get money for college are all mercenaries?

No, unless you accept Watchman's definition.

[Watchman]

They get paid money for fighting wars. Sounds like mercenaries enough to me.

Regardless of what exactly you define soldiers as, though, I for one rate avoiding civilian casualties higher than avoiding soldier casualties. Their job description includes a real possibility of dying a very nasty death somewhere quite far away, after all. Conversely it ought to be something of a matter of good etiquette for foreign soldiers from far away to refrain from burning local inhabitants to cinders solely for their own convenience, if you see what I mean.

[Tribesman]

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

Hey my dad was a mercenary , he desired the material gain of a decent pair of boots from the FCA .

[Papewaio]

IMHO this also means they are to a degree responsible for not endangering the likes of civilians, sort of like how truck drivers are expected not to endanger pedestrians.

Well IMDHO if a car swerves across the road I don't expect the truck driver to kill himself trying to protect the car driver.

[Watchman]

It's the pedestrians we're talking about.
*sigh*
Or, if you want me to stop playing around with metaphors and wring it out of wire, the US soldiers are the truck driver, the Iraqi civilians are the pedestrians and the insurgents are the dangerously driving biker gang.

[Watchman]

*shrug* Your definitions, not mine. I explained those already. Personally, I see little reason to cover the main purpose of soldiers or the fundamental reality of professional armies with any rhetorical fig leaves. Notice that there were no implicit or explicit values involved in my typologies - I'm far too avid a student of military history to make any generic judgements one way or other merely on the basis of a combat force's recruitement method. Well, not counting press-gang methods.

Besides...

Volunteer soldiers are normally held in higher esteem then conscripts,...

...you do realize that the Iraqi insurgents are by and large volunteers ? Or at least to my knowledge they're neither salaried nor legally obliged to fight for the cause(s) they obviously feel very strongly about...

[Xiahou]

Watchman, do you realize your definition classifies almost every organized military throughout all of history as mercenaries?

Well IMDHO if a car swerves across the road I don't expect the truck driver to kill himself trying to protect the car driver.

Good analogy.

[Papewaio]

"A definition that cannot differentiate is as useful as tits on a bull."