Libya and racism/paranoia

[Caustic Logic]

Sort of. Because of skin color, some non-mercs are being killed on a presumption they're mercs (or ... that's just an excuse?). Translate Libya to L.A., mercenaries to gang members, and that sounds pretty racist, right?

 

[Virus]

Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective
by Gerald A. Perreira / March 4th, 2011
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/libya-getting-it-right-a-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective/

That guy's nuts. He thinks Qaddafi is a great socialist hero, the mercenaries fight for "worldwide struggle for African emancipation" the rebels are "counter-revolutionaries" and the Western media deliberately reports everything wrong because they're racists.

Don't listen to radical Marxists. They're not right in the head.

 

[Mycroft]

Wait. Is someone saying that, because Libyans are attacking black people because they are most likely foreign agents, the Libyans are racists?

It's racial profiling.

 

[leftysergeant]

Are you saying the mercs in Libya are on US contracts?

Just expressing my opinion that dead mercs are not something over which a civilized person should cry bitter tears.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

How many irregulars are fighting in Libya on the rebel side? Quite a few, no doubt.

There were news stories a week or so ago (not sure of their veracity) of Gadhaffi shipping in Zimbabwean mercs. I suspect that story got wide circulation in Libya, given the technology of the modern day.

What you call paranoid strikes me as the world seen through the eyes of a comfortable Westerner in a safe country. When you go back to basic tribal behavior, which looks to be part of what is happening in Libya, a default is the mindset of "they" and "we" with continually narrowing definitions of "we" in operation. I'd offer Yugoslavia's break up, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe's efforts at the ethnic cleansing of whites as good examples of that mentality in operation.

It's a shame this happens, but it should not surprise you.

Rumor control and discipline are hard enough to maintain in organized units, where information is well vetted and spread. War brings out fear in people, with somewhat predictable outcomes.

It is also my observation that a civil war brings out the worst in people to a greater extent than other forms.

Consider what General Robert E Lee said after the battle of Fredericksburg:

It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it. ​

I suspect that in time, once this rebellion is over, successful or otherwise, any number of people will have some deep regrets over what went down. They are caught in the moment and that moment is a war. Most of them are ill suited, and not trained, on how to handle it.

I think you nailed this one first post, and off topic, your screen name and avatar reminded me that around just this week, back in 1967, my dad successfully landed a UH-1 with all hands after having his tail rotor shot off over Vietnam, which from what I understand is a difficult thing to do.

Anyway, I would add to your post that the Libyan rebels have every reason to be afraid of African mercenaries and skin color is the most prominent identifying feature. It's in no way fair or excusable or even rational (there are likely more civilian black Africans then mercs), but I can kind of understand it. There will be a lot to answer for on all sides once this gets sorted out, which, as you stated, is the nature of war.

 

[leftysergeant]

But FFS, why do you attempt to bridge this to Bush and Rummy's penchant for hiring mercs? You went significantly off topic in order to grind your ax. How about you keep a bit of focus.

Actually, I was just commenting on my feeling that mercs are not really fit to walk among human beings. That either we or Daffy Duce employ them is disgusting.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, I was just commenting on my feeling that mercs are not really fit to walk among human beings. That either we or Daffy Duce employ them is disgusting.

In your opinion, what's the moral difference between a mercenary hired by Libya and a member of the Libyan armed forces?

 

[leftysergeant]

In your opinion, what's the moral difference between a mercenary hired by Libya and a member of the Libyan armed forces?

A citizen has some moral obligation, when his country is at war, to take up arms to defend his country. I consider those still loyal to Daffy Duce to be misguided, but, morally, not wrong before the law.

The mercs are utterly amoral. It is not their fight. It is an utterly concieted act. They have no moral committment to the citizens of the nation, or subjects of the government, for whom they fight. Staying alive long enough to collect their pay is their only priority. This can lead to serious abuses of the locals, friend or foe. Some of our mercs in Iraq even engaged our soldiers because they dared make the mercs stop at a check point.

I wish every one of them a hideous bullet wound. They have earned it.

Same for Daffy's thugs.

The existance of his mercenary army, should he cling to power, is a threeat to peace throughout Africa, should he decide to exact some sort of revenge on neighbors whomm he decides did not show himm the support he thinks he deserves.

Mercs make it too easy to get into a war that the people of the sponsoring nation know better than to get into.

May they all burn in hell.

 

[Mycroft]

A citizen has some moral obligation, when his country is at war, to take up arms to defend his country. I consider those still loyal to Daffy Duce to be misguided, but, morally, not wrong before the law.

How would you know what their moral obligations are? Suppose some of them are former Libyan soldiers?

The mercs are utterly amoral. It is not their fight. It is an utterly concieted act. They have no moral committment to the citizens of the nation, or subjects of the government, for whom they fight. Staying alive long enough to collect their pay is their only priority. This can lead to serious abuses of the locals, friend or foe. Some of our mercs in Iraq even engaged our soldiers because they dared make the mercs stop at a check point.

All of them are utterly amoral? How do you know this? Where do mercenaries come from that you feel you can paint them all with the same brush?

And yeah, if some mercenaries engage US forces because they get stopped at a check-point, they're clearly wrong and if they end up dead, that seems appropriate, but isn't it wrong to judge all mercenaries by the bad behavior of a few? Wouldn't that be just as bad as judging all US forces by the bad behavior of Lyndie England or someone similar?

The existance of his mercenary army, should he cling to power, is a threeat to peace throughout Africa, should he decide to exact some sort of revenge on neighbors whomm he decides did not show himm the support he thinks he deserves.

Why?

Wouldn't a mercenary army be a lot more expensive than a regular army, so that maintaining one lone-term could bankrupt a nation? And just because they're paid to fight doesn't mean they're willing to sign on to any old stupid quest that comes along.

Mercs make it too easy to get into a war that the people of the sponsoring nation know better than to get into.

Maybe, but if true that doesn't make them different from a standing army.

May they all burn in hell.

You got some really ugly emotions on display there.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Sort of. Because of skin color, some non-mercs are being killed on a presumption they're mercs (or ... that's just an excuse?). Translate Libya to L.A., mercenaries to gang members, and that sounds pretty racist, right?

Did you know the country is at war?

The goal, when you are at war (except for the USA, of course) is to win. Being politically correct gets put on hold.

Of course, when the USA is at war, passing healthcare reform and bring the Olympics to Chicago demands attention.

 

[Bill Thompson]

A citizen has some moral obligation, when his country is at war, to take up arms to defend his country. I consider those still loyal to Daffy Duce to be misguided, but, morally, not wrong before the law.

The rebels do not want dialog or reform; they want to take over the government. So how are the people defending Kadaffi wrong?

Name-calling does not magically make someone bad. The politcal Left seem to love calling people names: "teabaggers", "Dick Cheney is a soulless zombie". The Left does not know that this makes their argument weak and makes them look immature.

Khadaffi has a lot of strange ideas. He is uneducated and yet he seems to have smarts where it counts. One could have said that about George Washington. What would the Americans do to citizens not loyal to the new Republic?

By the way, answer Mycroft's questions too.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think you nailed this one first post, and off topic, your screen name and avatar reminded me that around just this week, back in 1967, my dad successfully landed a UH-1 with all hands after having his tail rotor shot off over Vietnam, which from what I understand is a difficult thing to do.

That it is. One of my flight instructors had five shot from under him in 'Nam, two of them resulting in autorotations under duress. One usually has to autorotate if the tail rotor goes away in flight, which maneuver helo pilots practice. The "ya gotta do it for real with a load in a combat environment" adds pucker factor. Glad to hear your Dad managed to pull it off.

Anyway, I would add to your post that the Libyan rebels have every reason to be afraid of African mercenaries and skin color is the most prominent identifying feature. It's in no way fair or excusable or even rational (there are likely more civilian black Africans then mercs), but I can kind of understand it. There will be a lot to answer for on all sides once this gets sorted out, which, as you stated, is the nature of war.

Actually, I was just commenting on my feeling that mercs are not really fit to walk among human beings.

An understandable position whether or not W ever breathed oxygen.

 

[leftysergeant]

How would you know what their moral obligations are? Suppose some of them are former Libyan soldiers?

Why are they not back on active duty?

All of them are utterly amoral? How do you know this? Where do mercenaries come from that you feel you can paint them all with the same brush?

I think that most rational people believe that it is immoral to kill people just because your sponsor wants them killed.

And yeah, if some mercenaries engage US forces because they get stopped at a check-point, they're clearly wrong and if they end up dead, that seems appropriate, but isn't it wrong to judge all mercenaries by the bad behavior of a few?

First off, the dirtbags I was referring to there were supposedly working for us. Knowing what else I know about the company that employs them, I consider them as much a threat to civilization as al Qaeda. I would be perfectly cool with liquidating the whole outfit and using the procedes from the sale of their assets to provide medical care for disabled veterans.

Wouldn't that be just as bad as judging all US forces by the bad behavior of Lyndie England or someone similar?

People like Lyndie England, when found out, are subject to some very draconian punishments. Rightly so. But I would like to see far worse inflicted on the dirtbags who taught her and her boyfriend how to use dog collars to humiliate detainees. (It was civilian contractors.)

Wouldn't a mercenary army be a lot more expensive than a regular army, so that maintaining one lone-term could bankrupt a nation?

Why are you assuming that a tyrant in a country with a lot of resources to steal, divert or convert would give a rat's?

Maybe, but if true that doesn't make them different from a standing army.

It does, actually. Merc armies are easier to turn against your own people, should they tire of your crap.

You got some really ugly emotions on display there.

So? Mercs are pretty disgusting critters.

 

[Mycroft]

Why are they not back on active duty?

I dunno, but I can think of a lot of possibilities. Maybe the pay is better. Maybe they want to support the government but don’t want to commit to a long military term. Maybe they’re part of an existing mercenary unit and it’s just easier and more convenient to sign on as a unit than it is to try to fit into a chaotic and quickly expanding state run military. Or maybe their discharge wasn’t under the best of circumstances, but they still want to support their country.

The point is there are a lot of potential reasons…but as with anything each individual would have their own.

I think that most rational people believe that it is immoral to kill people just because your sponsor wants them killed.

You’re imposing an artificial simplicity on their motivations. If they support the state then they would be fighting for the stability of that state, and not “just because” someone said to kill someone.

You could actually make an argument that the mercenary has the potential of exercising greater morality than the nationalist soldier. Once the soldier signs on, he gives up his own decision making authority in where and why he uses deadly force. The mercenary can choose individually which conflicts he wants to become involved in.

First off, the dirtbags I was referring to there were supposedly working for us. Knowing what else I know about the company that employs them, I consider them as much a threat to civilization as al Qaeda. I would be perfectly cool with liquidating the whole outfit and using the procedes from the sale of their assets to provide medical care for disabled veterans.

Which would basically be murder. You’re not aiming for the moral high-ground here, are ya?

People like Lyndie England, when found out, are subject to some very draconian punishments. Rightly so. But I would like to see far worse inflicted on the dirtbags who taught her and her boyfriend how to use dog collars to humiliate detainees. (It was civilian contractors.)

If you have evidence, you neglected to show it in the relevant threads from the time.

Why are you assuming that a tyrant in a country with a lot of resources to steal, divert or convert would give a rat's?

I make no assumptions, but list real limiting factors. A tyrant could choose to do that, but at the cost of further instability in his regime which has already been proven unstable.

It does, actually. Merc armies are easier to turn against your own people, should they tire of your crap.

Can you cite some examples? I’m not aware of a lot of conflicts where mercenaries have played a decisive role.

So? Mercs are pretty disgusting critters.

Isn’t the object to be better?

 

[leftysergeant]

The point is there are a lot of potential reasons…but as with anything each individual would have their own.

But the fact remains that they are not the best and brightest and most patrioticsoldiers in the country

You’re imposing an artificial simplicity on their motivations. If they support the state then they would be fighting for the stability of that state, and not “just because” someone said to kill someone.

What business do Congolese have fighting for Daffy and killing civiliians who want him gone?

You could actually make an argument that the mercenary has the potential of exercising greater morality than the nationalist soldier.

I don't see how one could make that argument.

Once the soldier signs on, he gives up his own decision making authority in where and why he uses deadly force. The mercenary can choose individually which conflicts he wants to become involved in.

More often than not, those who sign up during relative peace time are swearing loyalty to a leader rather than to a nation. If you are not loyal to a nation, you have no business killing citizens of that nation to preserve the sitting government when the citizens withdraw their consent from the government.

Which would basically be murder. You’re not aiming for the moral high-ground here, are ya?

By "liquidate," I mean dissolve the corporation. Xe has no right to exist in a civilized society and could be a threat to our own people someday. Their leader is a Dominionist with anti-American leanings.

If you have evidence, you neglected to show it in the relevant threads from the time.

Do you think Lyndie and her boyfriend just decided to throw some dog collars into their kit bags to diddle with prisoners thay did not know in advance that they would be guarding before they shipped out to Iraq?

I make no assumptions, but list real limiting factors. A tyrant could choose to do that, but at the cost of further instability in his regime which has already been proven unstable.

A large part of the British forces in America were mercs. They did a lot of harm to society and may have been a contributing factor to the uprising against the Crown. They have always been a pain in the ass.

Can you cite some examples? I’m not aware of a lot of conflicts where mercenaries have played a decisive role.

Rome.

Isn’t the object to be better?

Of course. That is why I want Erik Pince and his scumbags neutered, disbanded, gone, disgraced, driven from any place at the table and generally dismissed from the ecconmomic, social or military affairs of this country.

 

[Mycroft]

But the fact remains that they are not the best and brightest and most patrioticsoldiers in the country

Evidence about best and brightest?

Seriously, I'm going to guess that most mercenaries begin their careers as regular soldiers in someone's army. Why would you assume they are less intelligent than anyone else?

What business do Congolese have fighting for Daffy and killing civiliians who want him gone?

All you're doing is rephrasing previous questions. Their motivations would be agreement with the cause, money, some combination of the two, or possibly other motivations you and I haven't thought about. But the point is what difference does it make? Why should their participation be less moral than the participation of the national forces?

I don't see how one could make that argument.

Pretty easy. As a mercenary, you get to choose for yourself what causes you fight for. If you think the cause is immoral, you can sit it out or even offer your services to the other side. For example, someone who considered themselves to be a marxist revolutionary could actually fight in multiple marxist revolutions. From his personal point of view, that would be very moral. At least back in the day when that sort of thing was popular.

More often than not, those who sign up during relative peace time are swearing loyalty to a leader rather than to a nation. If you are not loyal to a nation, you have no business killing citizens of that nation to preserve the sitting government when the citizens withdraw their consent from the government.

Well, the truth is a lot of citizens never had the opportunity to give their consent, and in any time of armed conflict I think you can take it as a given that a substantial portion feels that way.

By "liquidate," I mean dissolve the corporation. Xe has no right to exist in a civilized society and could be a threat to our own people someday. Their leader is a Dominionist with anti-American leanings.

I don't know what "Xe" is and I had to look up Dominionism, but the point is it's often wrong to extrapolate from the specific to the general. It's no more correct to assume that all mercenaries are bad because of the bad behavior of a few than it would be to assume that all soldiers are bad because of the bad behavior of a few. While my personal hope is that anyone who uses deadly force against US soldiers involved in the enactment of their legal duties becomes quickly dead, it's just not logically sound to take your dislike of one particular company and extrapolate a prejudice against the entire industry.

Do you think Lyndie and her boyfriend just decided to throw some dog collars into their kit bags to diddle with prisoners thay did not know in advance that they would be guarding before they shipped out to Iraq?

I don't think one way or another. If you want to assert one possibility is true, then provide evidence. If not, then at least have the honesty to distinguish between what you know to be fact and what is the product of your imagination. Leave the argument from incredulity to the truthers and conspiracy kooks.

A large part of the British forces in America were mercs. They did a lot of harm to society and may have been a contributing factor to the uprising against the Crown. They have always been a pain in the ass.

I think you should aim for examples within the last couple of decades rather than centuries ago.

Rome.

Or Millenia ago.

Of course. That is why I want Erik Pince and his scumbags neutered, disbanded, gone, disgraced, driven from any place at the table and generally dismissed from the ecconmomic, social or military affairs of this country.

If your aim is to be better, a good first start is to hold these people accountable for whatever specific crimes they have committed, and not just flaunt a prejudice for their entire profession.

 

[leftysergeant]

Seriously, I'm going to guess that most mercenaries begin their careers as regular soldiers in someone's army. Why would you assume they are less intelligent than anyone else?

Because they can't find honest work.

Why should their participation be less moral than the participation of the national forces?

Because nobody has a right to be employed as a professional killer for hire.

For example, someone who considered themselves to be a marxist revolutionary could actually fight in multiple marxist revolutions. From his personal point of view, that would be very moral. At least back in the day when that sort of thing was popular.

They can sign on under the same command structures as the army they are joining and demobilize when the war is over. To make a career of it is just uncivilized.

Well, the truth is a lot of citizens never had the opportunity to give their consent, and in any time of armed conflict I think you can take it as a given that a substantial portion feels that way.

And if there is not a national will to win, most military adventures fail. Ask the Ukrainians how easily the national will to win can be mustered.

No aggressor nation has a right to win in the first place. If they are invaded, the peole will have a reason to fight. It is a system of natural checks and balances that serves, in the modern world, to retard the rush to war behind a humbug. Hirng mercenaries removes one of those checking influences. They should never be tolerated in a civilized nation.

I don't know what "Xe" is and I had to look up Dominionism, but the point is it's often wrong to extrapolate from the specific to the general. It's no more correct to assume that all mercenaries are bad because of the bad behavior of a few than it would be to assume that all soldiers are bad because of the bad behavior of a few.

When you find some good ones, let me know. Far as i can see, they all suck.

While my personal hope is that anyone who uses deadly force against US soldiers involved in the enactment of their legal duties becomes quickly dead, it's just not logically sound to take your dislike of one particular company and extrapolate a prejudice against the entire industry.

They are typical mercs. Just a little more hyped up because they are high-end hired killers. And, because they were hired by a dangerous religious whackadoodle, they remain a threat to the life of the USA. They should be disbanded and disarmed before they get on their flights home. None of the foreigners among them shoulld have a resident alien card or a path to citizenship.

All of their contracts should be terminated now and any materiel they bought under that contract should be turned over to the Army. They are more dangerous than al Qaeda.

 

[Polaris]

Because they can't find honest work.



Because nobody has a right to be employed as a professional killer for hire.



They can sign on under the same command structures as the army they are joining and demobilize when the war is over. To make a career of it is just uncivilized.



And if there is not a national will to win, most military adventures fail. Ask the Ukrainians how easily the national will to win can be mustered.

No aggressor nation has a right to win in the first place. If they are invaded, the peole will have a reason to fight. It is a system of natural checks and balances that serves, in the modern world, to retard the rush to war behind a humbug. Hirng mercenaries removes one of those checking influences. They should never be tolerated in a civilized nation.



When you find some good ones, let me know. Far as i can see, they all suck.



They are typical mercs. Just a little more hyped up because they are high-end hired killers. And, because they were hired by a dangerous religious whackadoodle, they remain a threat to the life of the USA. They should be disbanded and disarmed before they get on their flights home. None of the foreigners among them shoulld have a resident alien card or a path to citizenship.

All of their contracts should be terminated now and any materiel they bought under that contract should be turned over to the Army. They are more dangerous than al Qaeda.

When they kill more than 3,000 Americans, maybe people will take this statement seriously.

It was mercenaries that put down the RUF in Sierra Leone. That should at least lower your bigotry levels.

 

[egslim]

Because they can't find honest work.

I wouldn't go that far. It's probably more accurate to say they don't want to find honest work.

It's the nature of the job that mercenaries are murderous scumbags, the same way kindergarten-teachers are people who love children.

I like this article.

The guys who volunteered for Blackwater didn’t go there to build peace-corps girls’ schools, they went to get rich in a free-fire, no-rules video game.

If you're serious about helping people in another country you can volunteer for one of a multitude of international aid-organizations. If you want to get rich in a real-life first person shooter, you become a mercenary. That goes for mercenaries everywhere.

 

[leftysergeant]

When they kill more than 3,000 Americans, maybe people will take this statement seriously.

Mercenary armies have always been a threat to the nation within whose borders they fester.

Prince's dirtbags were caught stockpiling illegal full-auto weapons by means of a straw man purchase.

He better keeop his sorry butt in Dubai. We don't need the Dominionist scum sucker back here to pave the way for a Dominionist coup, perhaps in conjunction with the start of the RaHoWa. The first loyalty of an armed body of men in America MUST be to America, not to whatever president or party holds the White House, not to Jesus and surely not to a blob of flotsam like Prince.

It was mercenaries that put down the RUF in Sierra Leone. That should at least lower your bigotry levels.

whoop