Mercinaries/Soldiers of Fortune




View Poll Results :Mercs.
Yes they are cheap and effective 6 33.33%
Depends 9 50.00%
No, you shouldnt go to war for money 3 16.67%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
October 11th, 2004  
Stafford911
 
 

Topic: Mercinaries/Soldiers of Fortune


I just saw somthing on the History Channel about Mercinaries(sp?) and it raised a question.Do you think that countries such as the United States should hire Mercinaries and private millitary contractors to help them do their work such as fighting, guarding buildings, training, transportation etc.
October 12th, 2004  
Lupos
 
 
it all depends on the mission that they ill be hired for and if they are loyal to their employer. Recently I heard that they are thinking about using them in Iraq.
October 12th, 2004  
Darkmb101
 
No, the USA can do teh work on its own. Besidesthe President would commiy poliyical sucide if the US uses mercenaries.
--
Boots
October 12th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
lol @ grammar
the US is using "mercenaries" right now in Iraq. The "civilian contractors" are the security firms that are in essence mercenary companies. Obvously these guys don't just fight for anyone but by the strictest definition they are mercs.

And I agree, it really depends on the situation.
Sometimes when it's low risk, yet important and you want to get it done quickly and efficiently (like training foreign troops) you might want to use these guys because they are professionals, they're effective and they don't brign along the military red tape.
October 12th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
they are mercs.
PMC employees aren't mercenaries, there's a difference. PMCs, PSCs, PSDs, MERCS .. all have differences in the real operational world. Each bring something different to the table.

Quote:
And I agree, it really depends on the situation.
Sometimes when it's low risk, yet important and you want to get it done quickly and efficiently (like training foreign troops) you might want to use these guys because they are professionals, they're effective and they don't brign along the military red tape.
PMCs, especially those from the US, have just as much red tape and accountability issues as anyone else.
February 28th, 2012  
Jay
 
 
Mercenaries should be used by the united states, not only are they cheaper than our own military (in terms of supplies and mission specs) but can be better trained. also in some Covert Ops a group of Mercenaries would be less likely to be traced back to a major government branch such as the C.I.A. or F.B.I. also, it would help the job market, win-win.
February 28th, 2012  
42RM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Mercenaries should be used by the united states, not only are they cheaper than our own military (in terms of supplies and mission specs) but can be better trained. also in some Covert Ops a group of Mercenaries would be less likely to be traced back to a major government branch such as the C.I.A. or F.B.I. also, it would help the job market, win-win.
Bollocks!
February 28th, 2012  
42RM
 
These private military employees operate in the military domain, but they are not part of the military. In legal terms, they are civilians and do not have the right to take a direct part in hostilities. However the notion of “participating directly in hostilities” is notoriously hard to define, especially in the chaotic circumstances of modern conflict. In theory, civilians are entitled to use force in self-defense or to prevent crimes, but not to engage in offensive military actions or defend military objects. In practice, the distinction is not always easy to draw. And if contractors do take part in hostilities, the consequences for them can be serious: they become legitimate targets for attack, and at the same time cannot claim prisoner of war status if captured by the enemy.

But perhaps even more worrying is the problem of controlling and regulating private contractors’ actions in a war zone where normal peacetime codes of conduct are inapplicable. Contractors are not part of the military chain of command, may lack proper training or appropriate rules of engagement, and are not subject to military systems of accountability. They cannot be court-martialed by state militaries, though some states (including the United States) have passed laws giving domestic courts jurisdiction over crimes committed by military contractors overseas. There is little in the law to define such basic questions as to who can work for private militaries, what rules they should operate under, and who private militaries can work for. To put it bluntly, a circus faces more regulation and inspection than a private military firm.
February 29th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Mercenaries should be used by the united states, not only are they cheaper than our own military (in terms of supplies and mission specs) but can be better trained. also in some Covert Ops a group of Mercenaries would be less likely to be traced back to a major government branch such as the C.I.A. or F.B.I. also, it would help the job market, win-win.
You read far too many comics and watch too much Hollywood bullsh!t.
March 2nd, 2012  
LtStryker
 
 
I feel like mercs can be a solution to some problems that military groups run into. 42RM pointed out that they sometimes fall outside the normal ROEs, is that always a bad thing? Sometimes the bullsh!t casualties that our military takes due to the ROEs could have been avoided by a group who did not have to stay within those guidelines. They could establish an objective and carry it out with an anything goes mentality rather than having to stay under certain rules.