I thought I provided a link to the UN in my Post

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

Link again.

That is not a treaty restricting the US... this is a general statement of principles of the UN. This is not a binding treaty.
The US is not party to this agreement... only the following nations signed the agreement.

Participant
Angola
Azerbaijan
Barbados
Belarus
Cameroon
Congo
Cyprus
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Georgia
Germany
Italy
Maldives
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria
Poland
Qatar
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Suriname
Togo
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Yugoslavia

http://untreaty.un.org/sample/Englis...II/treaty6.htm

Do you view the International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War as non-buinding as well? How about any International Convention from the UN?

If my country does not sign the declaration and make our country a party to the agreement then NO I do not consider my nation nor its citizens bound by any such agreement. And that's not just my opinion, that's the way treaties work. If you dont sign it you are not bound by it. Its a very simple black and white matter. Now if you wish to start selling postage stamps and form your own nation and sign onto such agreement upon attaining a seat in the UN you, yourself, are more than welcome to avail yourself of this and any other resolution or treaty that the UN puts out. But the US is not, nor is any other nation that is not signatory to the agreement, bound by the treaty.

To restate for clarity, under international law if a country makes itself party to a treaty then it is bound by the terms and conditions of the treaty, if it does not then it is not bound by any such restrictions, rules or conventions laid out in the document.

Now do you have a link or were you stating your opinion which was in fact not a fact?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

If my country does not sign the declaration and make our country a party to the agreement then NO I do not consider my nation nor its citizens bound by any such agreement. And that's not just my opinion, that's the way treaties work. If you dont sign it you are not bound by it. Its a very simple black and white matter. Now if you wish to start selling postage stamps and form your own nation and sign onto such agreement upon attaining a seat in the UN you, yourself, are more than welcome to avail yourself of this and any other resolution or treaty that the UN puts out. But the US is not, nor is any other nation that is not signatory to the agreement, bound by the treaty.

To restate for clarity, under international law if a country makes itself party to a treaty then it is bound by the terms and conditions of the treaty, if it does not then it is not bound by any such restrictions, rules or conventions laid out in the document.

Now do you have a link or were you stating your opinion which was in fact not a fact?

How about the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949 and the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) 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 ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) 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.

Edit: Seems the US Law has been repealed dealing with Mercs, but the definition of a Merc still stands, although as I pointed out PJ is free to call them what he wishes, as are you if you so choose.

And I had mistakenly thought the US was bound because the United States was listed http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement
In a UN document dealing with such, but only as a violator by the country of Cuba, which I personally do not see the US Government in volation of, nor do I see the US Government legally in violation of in terms of Iraq, I just do not see them as Military Hero's due the CMH, any other Medal, (unless they are prior service in the US Military) any Veterans Benefits, or even said to be Hero's in any sense of the word for any action in the Combat Zone, while the honorable job of being in the United States Military is looked upon as merely being one held by someone too stupid to make the big bucks as a Mercenary.

Originally Posted by Gator

True, I do not think we will find any common ground on this, and I would like to point out that you are free of course to forward your concerns about my Military Service to the Admin Staff.

I don't recall saying I had concerns about your military service. You have it claimed on your profile, do you not? That was my only reference. If I thought you were a liar, I'd just tell you up front and make no bones about it. I just found it funny (not funny ha ha) that someone that served, esp. in EOD (I know a lot of those cats, and many that have gone over to the civvy side) would dump his brothers so quickly just because they've moved on to civilian careers.

But either way, the contractors do not meet the criteria for a merc required in your own definition.

Originally Posted by PJ24

Funny how you claim service

That is from your Post, and you are, as I have said free to view the Mercs as you wish, but the definition is the definition, regardless.

Originally Posted by Gator

That is from your Post, and you are, as I have said free to view the Mercs as you wish, but the definition is the definition, regardless.

Yes, and nowhere does it say that I doubt your claim. I'll say what I mean and mean what I say.

And your definition doesn't fit the contractors. If you're going to use that definition, at least read it and make sure the guys you're calling "Mercs" fit the criteria.

Once again, we will have to disagree on everything.

I don't think of the Blackwater types as mercenaries at all. They are simply working for the United States in a private capacity, rather than working for the highest bidder.