Dear PoA Board

Henning said:
Ok, but you fit the definition of one.
Click to expand...
We don't get to pick and choose our fights in the military. The war was legal by a congressional vote. A mercenary would be someone going against the law or their ethics. Neither applies in Rambo's case. I actually thought both wars were a waste of money but I had no problem serving as a combat pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people we were killing weren't women and children, (accidentally that sometimes happens) they were some serious bad guys that would love to do us harm or even their own people. Call it extermination if you will.
 
Velocity173 said:
We don't get to pick and choose our fights in the military. The war was legal by a congressional vote. A mercenary would be someone going against the law or their ethics. Neither applies in Rambo's case. I actually thought both wars were a waste of money but I had no problem serving as a combat pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people we were killing weren't women and children, (accidentally that sometimes happens) they were some serious bad guys that would love to do us harm or even their own people. Call it extermination if you will.
Click to expand...

Doug is a contractor, not a soldier. We have no conscription so those who volunteer for the pay check, training and benefits rather than cause are also mercenary (doing it for the money).
 
Last edited:
There may be some patriots who signed up out of patriotism, Henning.
 
AuntPeggy said:
There may be some patriots who signed up out of patriotism, Henning.
Click to expand...

Those are the ones that sign up for the cause rather than the pay package, I didn't say everyone in the US military was a mercenary, just those that sign up because they wanted the benefits.
 
Henning said:
Doug is a contractor, not a soldier. We have no conscription so those who volunteer for the pay check, training and benefits rather than cause are also mercenary (doing it for the money).
Click to expand...

Contractors, even armed ones fill support roles. They don't launch offensive operations against the enemy. That would be considered a mercenary since there would be no legitimacy to that operation. they would also have no protection as POW status according to the Laws of War. Armed security guards or pilots performing supporting roles aren't defined as mercenaries.
 
Velocity173 said:
Contractors, even armed ones fill support roles. They don't launch offensive operations against the enemy. That would be considered a mercenary since there would be no legitimacy to that operation. they would also have no protection as POW status according to the Laws of War. Armed security guards or pilots performing supporting roles aren't defined as mercenaries.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want, but when you do it for money rather than ethics that makes it mercenary. Just because we now hire contractors to do what conscripts used to do makes no matter, logistics is the most important part of any military. In WWII it was Redballers, African American soldiers running the supplies up, now it's Halliburton or whomever, that IS the definition of a mercenary force, get it? We run a largely mercenary military anymore hiring in contractors to fill the roles of the conscripts we no longer have.
 
Velocity173 said:
Contractors, even armed ones fill support roles. They don't launch offensive operations against the enemy. That would be considered a mercenary since there would be no legitimacy to that operation. .
Click to expand...

A mercenary is someone who engages in acts of war primarily for money and on behalf of anyone who is wiling to pay. As I don't believe that there are any US servicemembers who would go to war on behalf of let's say Taiwan if the taiwanese goverment just offered them the same or better pay than DoD, they are not mercenaries. A mercenary force is not automatically illegitimate and it doesn't have to engage in offensive operations to be defined as such. The legion etrangeres is a mercenary force yet it is legal and for the most part serves as security force for french interests/embassies in africa.
 
weilke said:
A mercenary is someone who engages in acts of war primarily for money and on behalf of anyone who is wiling to pay. As I don't believe that there are any US servicemembers who would go to war on behalf of let's say Taiwan if the taiwanese goverment just offered them the same or better pay than DoD, they are not mercenaries. A mercenary force is not automatically illegitimate and it doesn't have to engage in offensive operations to be defined as such. The legion etrangeres is a mercenary force yet it is legal and for the most part serves as security force for french interests/embassies in africa.
Click to expand...

You guys are coming up with your own definitions and that's fine but these don't jive with the definitions in the Geneva Conventions governing the laws of war. A security guard isn't engaging in an act of war. They have weapons for self defense only. They are there for support or training of personel. Once they actively go out and offensively engage the enemy then they become mercenaries and probably be found "unlawful combatants" by a tribunal.

Now the CIA launching offensive operations with drones??? Now you might have an argument for a mercenary.
 
Henning said:
Call it what you want, but when you do it for money rather than ethics that makes it mercenary. Just because we now hire contractors to do what conscripts used to do makes no matter, logistics is the most important part of any military. In WWII it was Redballers, African American soldiers running the supplies up, now it's Halliburton or whomever, that IS the definition of a mercenary force, get it? We run a largely mercenary military anymore hiring in contractors to fill the roles of the conscripts we no longer have.
Click to expand...

Listen Henning I am by no means supporting contractors. I am the most anti-contractor you could meet. I won't go into my beliefs in the matter because we have plenty of contractors on this website and most of my friends fly contract overseas. I'll only give a quote from Gen McChrystal which I believe hints at the Military Industrial Complex problem. "I think we have gone too far." "I actually think we would be better to reduce the number of contractors involved."
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Listen Henning I am by no means supporting contractors. I am the most anti-contractor you could meet. I won't go into my beliefs in the matter because we have plenty of contractors on this website and most of my friends fly contract overseas. I'll only give a quote from Gen McChrystal which I believe hints at the Military Industrial Complex problem. "I think we have gone too far." "I actually think we would be better to reduce the number of contractors involed."
Click to expand...

Hey I make good money being part of the problem.
 
One nice thing about groups like this is that no one can be forced to get down on their belly in the muck and pointlessly slither around in demogogary and slime, you only participate if you want to or can't control yourself.

Heck, you can even say something and have it removed if you later think better of it.

I'm not sure I believe there needs to be a board to shut threads down. People wouldnt participate if they didnt get some joy out of the brawl.
 
Velocity173 said:
We don't get to pick and choose our fights in the military. The war was legal by a congressional vote.
Click to expand...

Actually there's been no Declaration of War by law, but there's plenty of apologists who'll ignore that and send the thread straight to the Spin Zone for me even mentioning that truth.

Anyway...
 
denverpilot said:
Actually there's been no Declaration of War by law, but there's plenty of apologists who'll ignore that and send the thread straight to the Spin Zone for me even mentioning that truth.

Anyway...
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, no war declaration was made. I suppose I should have worded that differently. The use of force was authorized not war.:rolleyes:
 
ChrisK said:
Hey I make good money being part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Hey I'm glad for you. I have friends who make 3 times the amount of my flying job doing contract in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not denying the fact they're high paying jobs.:)
 
Ok, but you fit the definition of one.
Click to expand...

I most assuredly do not.

Doug is a contractor, not a soldier.
Click to expand...

You don't know what I do or have done, but rest assured that I am not a mercenary.

There are more roles than simply "contractor" or "soldier." There's a lot of "other," and in between.

What was this thread originally about?
Click to expand...

It wasn't, much like the one to which this one refers.
 
ChrisK said:
Hey I make good money being part of the problem.
Click to expand...

There's a motivational poster for that:
consultingdemotivator.jpg
 
Oh boy, it's gonna get political and I can't access The Spin Zone! :(
 
DouglasBader said:
I most assuredly do not.



You don't know what I do or have done, but rest assured that I am not a mercenary.

There are more roles than simply "contractor" or "soldier." There's a lot of "other," and in between.



It wasn't, much like the one to which this one refers.
Click to expand...

You're feeding a(nother) troll, Doug.
 
Velocity173 said:
You guys are coming up with your own definitions and that's fine but these don't jive with the definitions in the Geneva Conventions governing the laws of war.
Click to expand...

This is how the UN defines mercenaries:

1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
So a ukrainian working for a US security contractor carrying arms in exchange for money is a mercenary. No need for a mercenary to engage in any unauthorized offensive action to fit the definition.

A US citizen working on the side of the US by definition cannot be a mercenary. Contrary to what was stated here earlier, a contractor is covered by article 4.4 of the Geneva convention.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. [/FONT]



 
Yes this UN definition is taken out of the Geneva Convention. That Ukraine that you mentioned isn't hired there to fight or take part in the hostilities. If you go further into the definition it specifically states civilians supporting armed forces are not part of the definition of mercenaries. Security guards, while they may not be a part of any nation engaged there are hired to protect diplomats. If that diplomat came armed for self defense would you consider them to be a mercenary?
 
I like definitions. This is a cool one too. (bolding mine)

  • In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Troll
Click to expand...
... we have been trolled.
 
Don't blame it on me. Henning got us on the mercenary crap.:confused:
 
Captain said:
Two threads of mine have now been locked. I'll take responsibility for the first (Reverse Highspee). The latest (This Captain is a Jerk) was not, IMO, my fault. I got ambushed by a single poster with an agenda.

Perhaps some guidance could be given to Doug explaining that behaviour is not welcome. His decision to follow my posts and sabotage them with his agenda is paramount to online stalking IMO and I'd like to publicaly ask for your assistance in stopping it.

Thank you,
Captain
Click to expand...

What do you want us to do, shove his face in the toilet and give him a swirly?
 
You're feeding a(nother) troll, Doug.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I don't really consider Henning a troll; his answers are often quite reasonable and even.

A US citizen working on the side of the US by definition cannot be a mercenary. Contrary to what was stated here earlier, a contractor is covered by article 4.4 of the Geneva convention.
Click to expand...

The enemy in our active locations presently (a number of them, anyway) aren't signatories of the Geneva Convention. While we are, of course, the Convention provides no protections to us, nor does it limit our activities against enemies who are not party to the Convention.

I carried a Geneva Convention card identifying my status and requiring compliance with the Convention, for some time. Theyt were withdrawn, particularly in certain operating areas, for several reasons; one of those reasons was that the Convention didn't apply.

The enemy, however, doesn't differentiate between military or civil participants, and contractors have been hit with more losses than the military.
 
DouglasBader said:
Possibly, but I don't really consider Henning a troll; his answers are often quite reasonable and even.



The enemy in our active locations presently (a number of them, anyway) aren't signatories of the Geneva Convention. While we are, of course, the Convention provides no protections to us, nor does it limit our activities against enemies who are not party to the Convention.

I carried a Geneva Convention card identifying my status and requiring compliance with the Convention, for some time. Theyt were withdrawn, particularly in certain operating areas, for several reasons; one of those reasons was that the Convention didn't apply.

The enemy, however, doesn't differentiate between military or civil participants, and contractors have been hit with more losses than the military.
Click to expand...

Technically, the U.S. is a "qualified signator." Basically we agree that the Geneva Conventions are a good idea, but refuse to be subject to an International tribunal for enforcement.

We have never adopted them as law. DOD has adopted compliance as a policy only.
 
I'm gonna laugh when this thread gets blocked and it had nothing to do with Captain!:lol:
 
Being I can't get the last 10 minutes of my life back, I just wrote up an invoice to try and at least get compensated for it.

Who do I send it to?
 
Mafoo said:
Being I can't get the last 10 minutes of my life back, I just wrote up an invoice to try and at least get compensated for it.

Who do I send it to?
Click to expand...

Al Gore, it's his fault for inventing the Internet....
 
Congress funded it; maybe it's their fault. :stirpot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top