Iraq spokesman: Ex-Blackwater employees not wanted in Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/...ter/index.html

"...Iraq said Friday it will file suit against five Blackwater security guards cleared of manslaughter charges in the 2007 killings of 17 Iraqi civilians, an act a government official called murder. Al-Dabbagh also said Friday the Iraqi government will ask the U.S. Justice Department to appeal a federal judge's dismissal of the charges Thursday, calling it "unfair and unacceptable.""

Doesn't look like the mess called the Iraq war is going to leave the radar any time soon.

Good post OTH.

Unfortunately, there is much more to Blackwater and Haliburton that the article does not get into, like Money, Power, Corruption and Control on a massive scale. They leave an ugly trail in their wake of destroyed lives.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...0_floyd14.html

Even this link only begins to break the surface.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

They're EEEEEEEVIL!!!!!!

I always wonder about the mental state of people who defend them.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I always wonder about the mental state of people who defend them.

What, exactly, were you wondering about it? As a person who defends "them" to some degree I'll be happy to field any questions you may have, though I must say that my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of others who defend "them".

In turn, I'd like to ask you about what makes Blackwater or Halliburton evil. Is it that they execute and support war for profit, respectively? I don't find that to be particularly evil. War is a market and there will be people looking to make a living where there is one to be had - even in war.

Perhaps you find the idea of war as a market immoral? I don't. War is immoral, to be sure, but so are genocide and totalitarianism. Which is more immoral; to leave the Iraqi people, particularly the Kurds, and the rest of the middle east subject to the whims of a madman, or to make war in an effort to stop it?

In the case of the Iraq war, if the former aforementioned circumstance is the more immoral, is it then immoral to fight for money and other, non-pecuniary compensation? I hope not, because if it is it means that we have a very immoral military, and that the world is full of very immoral states the people who support them by extension. After all, if our paid professional militaries are acting immorally, is it not then our moral obligation to stop them? And do not kid yourself - the military is full of people who joined for the compensation. Have you forgotten the legions of troops who were enticed to join the service with promises of money for college and lifetime benefits and whatnot, to say nothing of the state disguising the true nature of militaries and warfare with concepts of honor and duty and so on and so forth. How is that moral? If one joins the military for such reasons and is then asked to fight, is it more moral to obey one's oaths and serve (for compensation) or to desert and abandon them? If it is more immoral to fight, than does that not also mean that it is also immoral to respect and provide benefits for those who served? Why honor a mercenary? Is a soldier who serves with a moral purpose somehow less immoral than the state he has pledged obediance to if it prosecutes an unjust war?

As you can see, there are a lot of grey areas here, but they can be made rather black-and-white by going to the source of what we call evil. What is evil, exactly? There are endless numbers of greater evils and lesser evils and necessary evils, but what constitutes evil itself, in the human context? I will tell you that it is the use of force, deceipt, or coercion to infringe upon the sovereignty of others. That is what makes war evil. That is what makes genocide evil. That is what makes tyranny evil.

That is also what makes states a necessary evil. States use force to create societies. People need societies to advance and to secure their rights. They must have a system of laws and enforcement of those laws to work and trade in order to grow prosperous and innovate and protect their sopveregnty. The state is the generally accepted agency to effect this, and the main reason is that pretty much everyone agrees with the above. Thus, they more or less mutually consent to form a governing body.

To do that is moral. It creates greater order and enforces human rights. But it is only moral so long as the nature of the state is moral. Immoral states have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. Try to count the number of states that have oppressed, tortured, killed, or otherwise oppressed both their own people and others. Try to quantify the amount of suffering they have caused. I'll wait.

In case you are wondering, the reason they do that is because states are concentrations of power. Concentrations of power naturally attract people who desire power, obviously. People who desire power (like force) are inherently evil. They may not necessarily be immoral, but generally, they are. They seek to impose their own agendas upon others, through whatever means, and the state provides a convenient conduit. Just look at the people who comprise the states of the world today. Virtually all of them are ambitious seekers of power with their own views of how the world should be. It is not coincidental that they envision themselves as the executors of their own visions. It is rare to see a person of power who has a consistent record of acting in the interests of the people, or who leaves power to the people.

This is what made Jefferson and his ilk so remarkable. People like him envisioned a moral state. A state that had no power over its subjects other than some restricted and necessary powers and restriction thereof that it imposed upon itself. Of course, Jefferson himself was immoral - he owned slaves, how he treated them was no object, and the work he did to create the US state was also subject to immorality, to some extent.

Nonetheless, the state that Jefferson and other founding fathers created was superior. It was a constitutional republic the like of which the world had never seen, and the moral governance and freedoms that it created made the United States of America into a world power in an unprecedently short time for a nation so new and vast.

Nonetheless, the state Jefferson created was a concentration of power, and as he put it himself, it was subject to "the natural progress of things", and so it was. It didn't even take 3 decades for people to try to assert control through, rather than over, the federal government. Andrew Jackson, a now much-maligned president, destroyed the first instance of the federal bank. The Federal Reserve Bank resurfaced in the first years of the 1900's, and it has been around ever since, despite the fact that the government has absolutely no power to create or endorse such a thing beyond the power to "coin" money. That was due to the concentrated efforts of men, over the course of decades, to secure their own interests.
Again, as Jefferson said, it was "the natural progress of things". And why wouldn't it be?

Forgive me for this aside, but I'll briefly relate an experience that may help illustrate this concept in more detail. In some of the jobs I have held throughout my adult life I have been a member of several "safety" groups. As you may have surmised, the purpose of such councils or committees or teams or whatever name they bear is to create and enforce safety regulations. Safety is, after all, a very important concern for most firms. Tort laws pose a serious threat to profitability, so some of the wiser companies I have worked for arrived at the conclusion that getting an employee-based perspective on safety regulations would be a good idea. In every safety-group I participated in I noticed one common tendency; the tendency to over-regulate. That mystified me for a bit, but I eventually deduced the real cause for it. If one creates a group that is focussed solely on safety (or any other) regulations the group will embrace the natural human desire to excel at its task and (not coincidentally) justify its own existence. This tendency is doubly true in federal agencies, where budgets are awarded based upon what rhetoric a spokesperson can deliver to an uninformed bunch of disinterested but politcally-minded and charismatic fools who cater to public opinion rather than performance, and how much of others' money has been spent and what results it has achieved. Such is the nature of our society, which promotes specialization.

Jump ahead to the modern age and the level to which the US state has been co-opted by private interests is readily apparent. We all bitch and moan about lobbyists and the amount of money and lives that are spent furthering the agendas of lawyer-politicians and lobbies is very, very apparent to all of us. Nonetheless, we still often entrust powers to the federal state, despite the constitutional limitations on state power. Yet again, this is the natural progression of things. It is easy to say that this or that should be fixed by someone. It is much harder to deduce a truly effective and sustainable means to do so. The state is certainly not the answer.

Now, let us get back to Blackwater and Halliburton. Are they moral or immoral? Good or evil? The truth is that, relative to the state, they are both good and moral. For one thing, they do not lie about their intentions when it comes to the people they hold power over. They are quite straightforward about the fact that they are willing to pay their employees well for performing services related to war sanctioned by the US state. They do not have a conflict of interests, but rather an honest interest in conflicts, unlike so many states.

They serve the interests of the US govenrment for pay, no different from what any soldier does. They pay their employees well, and only recruit those who express both a willingness and a qualification to serve. Do I need to describe how expenentionally more moral that is than the conduct of the US military and government? They provide superior troops and services, making the conflict both shorter and more comfortable for the troops. They do that by paying more. Is that somehow immoral when one considers the Iraq situation? All they are doing is to provide effective services to the US military and creating jobs. And companies literally exist to create jobs. Charity is nice, but jobs are nicer. As the saying goes; give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Which is more moral - charity or profitability? Personally, I prefer to engage in charitable contributions of my choice where possible. I am no business magnate, and I have no ambition to create a company that will in turn create livleyhoods for people, so charity is my best option for satisfying the moral need to help other causes that I can identify with. Where I cannot give money I devote my time, and I am free to do that because the free market makes it so. Even now, without a permanent job, in the midst of a terrible recession, I still enjoy a standard of living that is not available to the vast majority of the people on this planet. My employer has made it so, and it only did so because it needs determined and skilled employees and it must pay for them. These are all selfish motives, but is the end result moral, or immoral?

If you are really looking for evil or immorality, Torvald, I would suggest that you start with the very nature of the states that create such conflicts. If states were not controlled by self-interested *******s there would be little reason for war and therefore no need for mercenaries or war-contractors or a war-industrial complex. Trade would be the maxim, and trade does not treat conflict lightly, because it is disrupted by it, except where the state creates a market in war.

With all this talk of trade and morality and governance you may be wondering where I place my own opinion, in case you have not guessed it from my previous submissions. My support lies with the Jeffersonian ideals of self-determination and non-interventionism. As a people, we and our government can only be charged with our own well-being. We must not engage in foreign wars or entangling allances. We must practice free trade with all nations and acceptance of all peoples, but we must never let anyone co-opt the federal state. Our own virtues will see us prevail as a nation. If others seek to co-opt us or destroy us from within, let them come and compete using their own virtues. We will either destroy them or assimilate them, something that will happen purely via free will, and in doing so we will create the best society.

We must use our state for the means it was intended. It must provide a level field, but it must not try to balance the teams. It must not provide a conduit that can be used to bypass the level field. The US state is a good state in theory, but over two centuries of exposure to the natural progression of things has seen its decline. What we need now is a new constitution. One written with the lessons of history in mind, and that is even more restrictive of federal powers, and more clearly defined.

The state is a concentration of power. It is a necessary evil, and so it must be subjugated and brought to heel. It must be made to encourage domestic meritocracy where possible, and rendered impotent otherwise. In making it so we will find ourselves in a new era, one in which nations lead by example, rather than force. If nations choose to make their peoples suffer by enforcing a centralistic agenda it will be no concern of ours. They will either come around or ruin themselves, but their conduct is not within our jurisdiction so long as it does not affect us. In the meantime the prosperity we will reap from being free of war and government power will allow us to aid those who suffer as much as possible until they reform themselves.

Does Haliburton and others, such as The Carlysle Group, serve the state, or do the stateS now serve them?

[AVGWarhawk]

Blackwater does not exist under that name anymore. However they do still exist. Personally, if they did wrong then they did wrong and should go to trial.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

What, exactly, were you wondering about it? As a person who defends "them" to some degree I'll be happy to field any questions you may have, though I must say that my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of others who defend "them".

In turn, I'd like to ask you about what makes Blackwater or Halliburton evil. Is it that they execute and support war for profit, respectively? I don't find that to be particularly evil. War is a market and there will be people looking to make a living where there is one to be had - even in war.

Perhaps you find the idea of war as a market immoral? I.....

Brilliant

[Skybird]

In europe's history we have had mecenary armies existing independant from government/feudal rulership. That europe has moved beyond this and established regular standing armies "wearing the king's colours", is not for no reason, but has been a great acchievement in the quest for peace, how fragile it may be.

War should not risked to become object of market and economic enterprise again. It will bring oyu more war. It should be kept under national government'S control whether or not a naton declares war or not - not a board of profit-hungry entrepreneurs. That is also the reason why the close alliance between the arms industry and politics (the often mentioned militar-industrial complex) is such a huge threat not only to hostile nations, but to the hosting demiocracy itself. Eisenhower has not warned of it for no reason, and he surely cannot be accused of not knowing what he was talking of. As general and then as president he learned to know both sides of this unholy alliance all too well. that'S why he warnd of it.

The Italians called mercenaries "condottiere", and a famous mercenary leader was the Englishman John Hawkwood. Of him , this story exists, and it illustrates perfectly why we should not want private mercenary companies.

In novella 181 of his Trecentonovelle, the fourteenth-century storyteller Franco Sacchetti has John Hawkwood encounter two Franciscan monks near his fortress at Montecchio. The monks greet the Englishman.

‘‘Monsignore, God grant you peace,’’ said the monks.

‘‘And may God take away your alms,’’ Hawkwood responded immediately.

‘‘Lord, why do you speak to us this way?’’ asked the frightened monks.

‘‘Indeed, because you spoke thus to me,’’ replied John.

‘‘We thought we spoke well,’’ said the monks.

‘‘How can you think you spoke well,’’ said Hawkwood, ‘‘when you approach me and say that God should let me die of hunger? Don’t you know that I live from war and peace would destroy me? And as I live by war, you live by alms. So that the answer I gave you is the same as your greeting.’’

Considering the many brutal wars in europe and the role mercenary armies plaxed in them, namely the 30-years war, there is no excuse to want to go back to the institution of mercenary armies.

Recommended reading: Herfried Münkler's superb "The new wars".

http://www.amazon.com/New-Wars-Herfr...2630485&sr=8-2



P.S. I see that an even better book bei Münkler finally has been translated and published in English. A very good, an outstanding book: Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States

http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Domina...2630556&sr=8-1

Over the past years I have repeatedly referred to the German edition of this book. Amazon.com gives it only 5 star reviews by readers, and quotes editorials hailing it's outstanding excellence. And me: I say you won't find a better book on empires so easily that nevertheless get the difference between empire and imperialism. A most excellent study.
.
.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Does Haliburton and others, such as The Carlysle Group, serve the state, or do the stateS now serve them?

The answer should be obvious, given the nature of their relationship with the state. Each serves the other, and their interests become increasingly fused.

In many ways, the actions of companies like Haliburton are not much different from the actions many of us take in securing our own livleyhoods. Where we write resumes and put on our best face and clothes for interviews, these companies hire PR experts and professional lobbyists in an effort to secure contracts. They are the same thing, just on different scales.

There is nothing notably wrong with all that, aside from the little white lies that both we and businesses tell when a job is on the line. Where it becomes wrong is when the state is given the power to actively regulate business rather than simply punish infractions. There are few people on this planet intelligent enough to start and run a successful company that are not also not smart enough to see the potential of regulation. There are even fewer who are so noble as to not act upon that knowledge.

The power to legislate is a prerequisite for the power to regulate, and where there is law there is the potential to outlaw things. For the shrewd businessman this means that there is potential to outlaw the competition, and that is precisely what they have been doing for hundreds of years. We just don't see it very often because they are so good at it. They hide their intentions behind noble-sounding causes like safety and environmental or job or whatever protection, or strategic and national interest. It is no small coincidence that most of the landmark regulatory decisions made in this century were generally supported by the largest firms in the industries concerned, and that those same firms offered their services in an advisory capacity for the regulatory boards to be formed. Half the time their employees or ex-employees are actually on the damn boards! Thus, the competition is either outlawed or the industry becomes prohibitively expensive to enter, which is just a way of outlawing something without actually outlawing it.

This is, once again, the natural progression of things. To simultaneously illustrate the point and provide an example of how this kind of mechanism is at work even amongst those of us who are not business tycoons, I give you the example of the modern labor union. Most people think unions are a good thing. After all, they protect jobs and work for higher wages and better working conditions for employees, do they not? Indeed they do, but the detriments of labor unions are not so readily apparent and certainly not as widely publicized.

The first labor unions had the much less noble-sounding moniker of "guilds". In essence, they were nothing more than conglomerations of established businessmen who sought to both regulate who could and could not practice their trade and win the support of the crown or the local noble(s). Obvious twofold goal there - elimination of competition and securing a source of work and therefore revenue.

Most of the guilds were eventually destroyed or disbanded when the industrial revolution came about. Machines that could produce plentiful and cheap goods replaced skilled artisans in fairly short order. The guilds could not compete, and thank God they could not or else we would still be living in a society where luxuries and good jobs were not available to the common person.

The industrial revolution also brought problems, however. The common conception is that workers labored ceaselessly in terrible conditions for very little pay, and this is true to some extent. The advent of machine labor meant that many goods could be produced quickly, but the population willing to buy those goods was still relatively small, so prices for both goods and labor fell.

Nonetheless, people still flocked to the cities to find work in factories and foundries. Why do you suppose they did that? Again, the answer is obvious; people left the farms to work in the factories because despite the dire conditions it was still a better way to make a living than scratching about in the dirt for even longer hours and even less pay. The industrial revolution alsop revolutionized agriculture, and there was more food than there were consumers to buy it, so the already miserable practices of share-cropping and serfdom were made even less appealing than before.

This state of affairs continued for a good while, but as the general standard of living improved, so did the lots of the workers. The most successful companies began paying higher wages to attract and keep better employees. In the most extreme examples they actually set up corporate welfare systems, where the company literally paid for and provided everything from birth to death. Today this is viewed as an abhorrent practice, but why? Those of us who are the teeming masses should all be so lucky to be guaranteed such a lifestyle.

The reason for the discontinuation of the practice was because the companies practicing it were hamstrung by regulation and were even outlawed in some cases. Enter the labor unions and the trust-busting of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

As technology and industry advanced a few firms in key industries, led by great businessmen, emerged supreme from all the fierce competition. Companies like US Steel and Standard Oil became market dominators, and both their employees and their customers reaped the benefits of their efficient production of goods. The prices of things like steel and oil had never been so low, and the compensation of workers and the volume of inventory moved had never been so high. Well-documented statistics from the period indicate this, but today these firms and the men who commaned them are viewed as a failure of capitalism. Look at any high-school US history textbook. The companies concerned are called monopolies, and their leaders are called robber-barons. So what happened?

What happened is that competitors got upset about being beaten. Since they could not compete effectively, and they could not innovate sufficiently, they sought the help of the state to bypass the market. We cannot ever really know what words passed between them and the political representatives of the states in the lobbies of the Capitol building at the time since such things are not recorded, but we do have enough access to Congressional records from the period and the nature of modern lobbying to field a reasonable guess as to what was said. It probably went a lot like this; "Wah wah wah, we're the little guys and we support the worker and these companies are too powerful and it isn't fair how the workers are being treated and there should be some ground-rules set and we'll be happy to serve in an advisory capacity in this effort." I exaggerate, but not much. As a consequence, there were a lot of regulations enacted to protect workers and fix prices and so on and so forth. There was also a lot of media attention focussed on the subject.

Now, on to the unions. Unions had been around well before all this happened, but they weren't very powerful. They had to strike a delicate balance when negotiating with employers because if they made too many demands as a whole they would simply be fired as a whole and a new workforce would be hired to replace them. This situation was made worse by the tremendous amount of available labor. In their darkest days, the nature of labor unions was revealed in startling clarity as they beat, maimed and even killed strikebreakers. This says something of just how far people are wiling to got to protect their own interests, to say nothing of what New York City police did to the strikers, which says something of just how far the state (in that case, the Tammany Hall political machine) will go to protect its' interests.

With the advent of new regulatory laws, however, their situation changed drastically. One of the main ways that the competitors of big business sought to bring it down was to increase its overhead costs, and what better way to do that than to attack the most significant overhead cost of any business; labor.

Small firms have little to fear from unions. They don't have armies of specialized personnel to deal with. If the bookkeeper refuses to work because he feels he is not being adequately compensated it is no great matter to fire him and replace him. If an entire host of bookkeepers strike and you cannot legally replace them, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. In retrospect, this was a vey foolish tactic for the leaders of unsuccessful firms to adopt. After all, even if the competition is eliminated and the way made clear for success, they would eventually have to deal with labor unions. I suppose their foolishness isn't entirely surprising, given that they were the leaders of unsuccessful firms. They were happy to trade ultimate success and the economic fate of a nation for a few moments of security.

The labor unions they empowered were no different. With their power to collectively bargain, arbitrate, and strike enforced by the state they had little incentive to refrain from seeking additional compensation. Most of the large corporations and corporate welfare systems in the US were destroyed before they had the presence of mind to react. Those that survived were broken under Teddy Roosevelt's administration.

America began a plunge into economic crisis as it became less and less competitive and more and more speculative. Few people remember it, but there was a great fiscal crisis in 1907, and even fewer remember why it happened. Ironically, it was one of the robber-barons, J.P. Morgan, who was largely responsible for the near-immediate recovery. The Central bank was re-founded by some ambitous souls shortly thereafter. Plutocracy breeds plutocracy.

America did not immediately plunge into another recession after these events. We owe our relative stability during that time to the idiocy of European politicians and monarchs more than we do to successful economic policy, however. As they slaughtered each other by the millions a huge demand was created for American war goods and it fueled our economy for several years. Once the war was over, America found itself in the exact same position it had been in before, with labor unions and regulation discouraging new enterprise but encouraging investiture in established companies. It was further helped by the fact that Europe, its main competitor, had largely annihilated its industrial and finacial base for no apparent reason.

Investiture is a good thing, but not if everyone invests in the same thing and it fails. Market "bubbles"(unsustainable growth trends) began to form in the early twenties. The biggest bubble of all was that of interests secured by expectations of German war reparations both directly and indirectly. In 1929 America recieved a triple-blow when many of these bubbles popped, a bank run began, and the Federal Reserve (as the central bank came to be called) enacted a disastrous policy of freezing monetary assets, which it called a "bank holiday". When banks are failing left and right because of a lack of near-money assets, the worst possible thing one could do is to freeze those assets. The assets can be frozen, but the market forces that govern them cannot. It is no surprise that the very day the bank holiday was ended, the market crashed even more steeply. It was like containing thousands of cheering fans at a popular event for several hours and then suddenly allowing them to rush the stage or arena or whatever. It was the fiscal equivalent of a soccer riot. No wonder people got trampled to death.

This post is already getting very long, and I must restrain myself from launching into a detailed analysis of the great depression, but the point has largely been made. Unions were a major contributor to the state of US industry and the circumstances in which it found itself.

Now, let's move to the modern labor union. The same basic mechanisms that drive it are still in place but the circumstances have changed. Unions now lobby congress with greater fervor and sums of money than ever before, and US industry has suffered as a result. Just look at the state of unionized US industries. They all suck, and they all produce inferior products at tremendous cost. They try to combat global competition with tariffs and mandated industry standards, but they are gradually being replaced with more cost-effective foreign business models. They have failed so utterly that they have, on more occassions than the recent auto- industry bailout, been forced to seek public aid to shore up their collapsing firms.

Yet they are still viewed as a good thing. When people scream about bailouts and job loss and outsourcing they almost never point a finger at the unions. They never really ask themselves why things have become the way they are. The members of the union themselves certainly don't ask any questions. Like the failed businessmen who first lobbied congress to empower them, they are willing to trade the future of a nation for a moment of safety.

I am no different. I am a member of one of the largest labor unions in the country, the United Transportation Workers Union, and also a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. Given the way things are inevitably going to progress, I'd be a fool to not be a member of those organizations. They guarantee me a good wage and a secure job. Even now, when I am furloughed, my seniority remains and I recieve benefits for being employed at a lesser wage than the compensation rate dictated by the union. One day I will return to the railroad and everything will be as if I had never left. My health benefits also remain intact, but at what cost to everyone else? Working people who are not me have to pay for those expenditures. Is that moral or immoral? I consider it immoral, but I have bills to pay and a life to sustain. I wish I had some more virtuous cause, but that's it.

Perhaps now you see the power behind the natural progress of things, and you can more readily answer questions like the one you posited above for yourself.

Haliburton and companies like it will eventually merge themselves with the state in the manner most beneficial to themselves, just as unions do. They don't do it out of malice or some complex design, they just do it because it is what is best for them.

The solution to this problem is to eliminate the state's power to respond to lobbying. If it is extremely difficult to legislate or regulate, companies won't waste their time and money trying to bypass conventional market mechanisms, so they must either perform or innovate. This was the idea behind the US constitution, but it was not refined enough. What we need is a constitution that sets in stone a certain number of powers granted to the state with absolutely no room for interpretation, and that needs to be stated as well. The original constitution tried to do exactly that, but it didn't do it well enough. There needs to be a host of other safeguards to protect against the natural progess of things. There should be restrictive provisions made upon federal budgeting and legislation. There should be extremely restrictive statutes set concerning changing the provisions set for federal budgeting and legislation. All other powers should be reserved to the states and the people.

This is the way in which we fight the tendency of state and business towards monopoly. It is not a perfect solution, but it will buy us time until the next great thinkers come along and propose a more moral and sustainable system.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In europe's history we have had mecenary armies existing independant from government/feudal rulership. That europe has moved beyond this and established regular standing armies "wearing the king's colours", is not for no reason, but has been a great acchievement in the quest for peace, how fragile it may be.

War should not risked to become object of market and economic enterprise again. It will bring oyu more war. It should be kept under national government'S control whether or not a naton declares war or not - not a board of profit-hungry entrepreneurs. That is also the reason why the close alliance between the arms industry and politics (the often mentioned militar-industrial complex) is such a huge threat not only to hostile nations, but to the hosting demiocracy itself. Eisenhower has not warned of it for no reason, and he surely cannot be accused of not knowing what he was talking of. As general and then as president he learned to know both sides of this unholy alliance all too well. that'S why he warnd of it.

I had to make this a seperate post because I have done enough droning on for today and my last post is already an intimidating wall of text.

I'll reserve this space for my rebuttal, Sky, but at the moment I have a blind movie date to commit to

Believe it or not, I would much rather spend the evening composing a response to your post and challenging my own views, but I doubt that my "date" would understand. At the very least, it would be too much trouble to explain to her.

In any case, I will try to compose a suitable response tonight, assuming that I have the energy to do so after viewing the new "Sherlock Holmes" movie and enduring the pointless banter she is likely to engage me in afterwards.

In the meantime I will be reflecting upon what it is that makes certain people I know of think that they are helping me by setting me up with people I have not met and have no desire to meet by falsely telling them that I have remarked on their physical attractiveness.

@UnderseaLcpl

You've spent quite a-bit of time on a very well written post.

The only statement you've made that is debatable is:
"Haliburton and companies like it will eventualy merge themselves with the state".
You speak Truth. The only thing debatable about the statment is whether it will happen, or has already happened.

"The Natural Progress Of Things" is in reality, not very natural at all, but highly manipulated.
The destination for "The Natural Progress Of Things" is none other than "The Great Trust".
The vehicle is driven by Haliburton and companies like it, under the supervision of their controlers. It is in all actuality Super Organized Crime which continues to step on and/or swallow it's competitors, as it gains and tightens control over states and their populations.

How one percieves The Great Trust is relevant to how one percieves Haliburton, and companies like it.

UnderseaLcpl,

to answer a couple of points you made, Blackwater/Xe/Triple Canopy/etc. create jobs? Well to the Iraqi hearse people sure, and unfortunately it's been quite a few innocent civilians as was mentioned in the link in the OP.

There are evil people in corporations too and not just in governments. Corporations and big global companies aren't limited by treaties that govern the nations, they can and do crap on things such as human rights and antipollution measures. This serves as the base on which the US wants to build it's new, unrestricted mercenary military.

Yes it's true that the US military based on more or less voluntary joining is a kind of mercenary force in itself. Although for the US military recruiting for cannon fodder in places like the slums and other areas devoid of possibility of eduction etc. could be seen to be quite immoral.

Even if the US military shares some qualities with a mercenary military doesn't mean that it's ok for the US to fight it's dirty wars with a mercenary military or even to create them. This is yet another attempt by the US to try to evade the rules of war and codes of conduct that govern warfare. The issues of torture etc. are another example of the same mindset. By following this route the US is doing exactly what the those that oppose it want it to do, to be the bad guy. That's the only thing the extremist such as Al Queda want, for the US to use mercenary militaries, to torture, etc. That is their victory.

Constructor casualties (another euphemism that includes mercs and similar) in Iraq as to date number 462. That's a pretty high number when compared to the total US casualties in Iraq. A lot of civilian casualties have been caused by the haphazard activities of the mercenary forces, a good example of their conduct is this video that was released some time ago. In the vast sea of violence in Iraq it's more then likely that incidents of acts of violence by the mercenary troops have gone unreported.

Aegis video.

As for the labour union-stuff, not sure what you mean with all that. In Finland the labour unions have done a pretty good job in securing all Finns with basic rights that even Canadians don't have and can't believe when we tell them. Feel welcome to visit and acquaint yourself.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I returned home from that predictably lousy date intending to respond to Sky's post but instead I have two other posts to respond to. Fortunately, OTH's post kind of segues into what I was going to talk to Sky about so I think I can respond to everything tonight.

And I will try not to write a book this time

Originally Posted by Snestorm

@UnderseaLcpl

You've spent quite a-bit of time on a very well written post.

The only statement you've made that is debatable is:
"Haliburton and companies like it will eventualy merge themselves with the state".
You speak Truth. The only thing debatable about the statment is whether it will happen, or has already happened.

"The Natural Progress Of Things" is in reality, not very natural at all, but highly manipulated.
The destination for "The Natural Progress Of Things" is none other than "The Great Trust".
The vehicle is driven by Haliburton and companies like it, under the supervision of their controlers. It is in all actuality Super Organized Crime which continues to step on and/or swallow it's competitors, as it gains and tightens control over states and their populations.

How one percieves The Great Trust is relevant to how one percieves Haliburton, and companies like it.

First, thanks. Second, I don't really know anything about a "Great Trust". To be honest, the idea of a Great Trust in the form you describe sounds a little bit like a stretched conspiracy theory. I don't mean to be offensive by saying that, just open.

I'm not willing to disregard the idea, as it certainly could happen and I would certainly describe many facets of the state-industrial complex as Super Organized Crime, but I'd have to see a decent case made for its existence. I will also say that I know for a fact that there is some merging of state and corporate interests going on. There has been for years - in some cases there has and continues to be nationalization of private enterprise. My fear is that it will get worse.

Now who, exactly, are these controllers you mention? You have piqued my curiosity by claiming that there is an organized body orchestrating all this. It is my experience that centralized bodies who try to control things usually fail utterly and end up using open oppression in a manner directly attributable to them in a desperate attempt to maintain control. I could look it up myself, but I'd rather have your persepective on it. I find it easier to avoid bias if someone tries to convince me of something rather than simply reading about it myself. When I've no one but myself to consult I often form false assumptions that could easily be avoided if put in the proper context.


Now on to OTH and Skybird.

Originally Posted by OneTough Herring

to answer a couple of points you made, Blackwater/Xe/Triple Canopy/etc. create jobs? Well to the Iraqi hearse people sure, and unfortunately it's been quite a few innocent civilians as was mentioned in the link in the OP.

Well yes, they do create jobs. Every mercenary serving overseas has a job that was provided by companies like these, as do their support staff. I hope Iraqi morticians are not relying on them for business, though, or they'll be having a pretty lean profit margin.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Contractor casualties (another euphemism that includes mercs and similar) in Iraq as to date number 462. That's a pretty high number when compared to the total US casualties in Iraq. A lot of civilian casualties have been caused by the haphazard activities of the mercenary forces, a good example of their conduct is this video that was released some time ago. In the vast sea of violence in Iraq it's more then likely that incidents of acts of violence by the mercenary troops have gone unreported.

Aegis video.

Well, first of all, 462 is not that high of a number considering the length of the occupation and the number of attacks, especially compared to the number of military casualties, which are in the tens of thousands already, and insurgent and civilian casualties, which are incalculable but very much higher. It may also be tempting to link KBR truck drivers and the like in with combat casualties suffered by armed PMCs but doing so does not give us a clear picture of the situation. Every single day there are lightly-guarded miles-long convoys of unarmored semi-trucks and other civilian transport vehicles driven by contractors in broad daylight or with headlights on at night, driving all over the country but particularly in Al-Anbar and around Baghdad.. What is really amazing is that their casualties are so low, and those casualty rates say volumes about the performance of suppression measures and the ineptitude of the insurgents.

I watched the video, and I wonder how you or anyone else arrived at the conclusion that the Iraqi vehicles in the video were being shot at "for fun".
In every single clip shown there was a vehicle approaching quickly from the rear - a favored tactic of suicide vehicle bombers in the first years of the occupation, and one that remains in some areas. Watch the clip carefully. It may seem like the camera vehicle is using an unusually large number of bullets, but that's because they are trying not to kill the driver. The first shots are warning shots. As the vehicle gets closer they fire at the tires, then at the grill, and finally at the windshield. Most of those clips showed legitimate procedure for engaging potential vehicle-borne threats and all of them were within acceptable parameters.

Tragically, both mercenaries and regular US forces kill a large number of innocent Iraqis in this manner. Most of the Iraqis in the AO I served in (Camp Fallujah, Al-Anbar province and subsidiary OPs) knew that when you see an American convoy, military or contractor, you pull the hell over and don't do anything stupid. Some, however, either just don't get it or aren't paying attention or are visitors to the country. The really dumb ones will actually try to pass the convoy, and the one thing you do not ever, ever want to do in Iraq is accelrate towards a convoy, checkpoint, ro*******, or guard station in a civilian vehicle. You will be dead, wounded, or severely shaken in no time flat.

Yes it's true that the US military based on more or less voluntary joining is a kind of mercenary force in itself. Although for the US military recruiting for cannon fodder in places like the slums and other areas devoid of possibility of eduction etc. could be seen to be quite immoral.

And I wholeheartedly agree. You should hear some of the things they tell those poor fools to get them to join up. Ask anyone in the service if they got what they were promised. A few will answer in the affirmative, the rest will tell you stories with the general purpose of explaining how their recruiter screwed them and how badly. I am one of those. I endured a lot of rigorous and difficult testing in an effort to become a cryptologic linguist, that is, a cryptologist who deciphers codes in foreign language. After passing my exams I was informed that there were no slots available. "Too bad, pick another MOS". So then I wanted to be a tanker. I figured if I couldn't get in as a technical specialist in a field I had great aptitude for then I might as well do something cool, like driving a tank. Again, I was refused because no slots were open, despite the apparently grave need for personnel in all fields. I finally decided to become a reservist because I didn't think I could endure 4 years of doing whatever garbage jobs were needed and was finally granted a position as a Field Radio Operator. I'm a communicator by nature, so the idea appealed to me, but I was sorely disappointed by what I experienced afterwards. For one thing, I was not given my original enlistment bonus; something I learned after I was sworn in and had completed recruit training. I was also denied immediate promotion to E-3 despite recommending two other poor SOBs who subsequently enlisted, and despiute being the company standard-bearer (which involves the dubious honor of carrying a big flag on a heavy pole in all marches and runs) and despite being what essentially amounted to the administrative recruit co-ordinator.

Nonetheless, I pursued my occupational specialty with fervor and determination. I went to great lengths to learn about the nuances of radio and wire communications and delved into antannae theory and waveform propogation with singular force of will. In less than two years I was regarded as the preeminent radio operator in 14th Marines HQ Battery. Communications officers with a lifetime of experience sought my aid, and everyone in the comm field sought my advice and training. When the Iraq War came I was eager to prove my worth in an actual theater of operations. I volunteered three freaking times before I was finally granted a chance to deploy and they made me a goddamn truck driver.

Even then, I was undeterred. I strove to be the best freaking truck driver ever and I worked constantly to improve the performance of the Marines placed under me, as well as my own. One of the few things I consider as a real accomplishment in my life is that no truck under my command was ever hit, and no personnel in them were ever injured. Some of my drivers were wounded in convoys commanded by others, and some of the trucks in my care were destroyed, but not while I was leading them. Nobody under my command dies without me dying first! I will not allow it!

Hmm.. I seem to have gone off on quite a tangent there. I'm tempted to delete it, but I won't, since it feels good to type it.

Moving on.....

Even if the US military shares some qualities with a mercenary military doesn't mean that it's ok for the US to fight it's dirty wars with a mercenary military or even to create them. This is yet another attempt by the US to try to evade the rules of war and codes of conduct that govern warfare. The issues of torture etc. are another example of the same mindset. By following this route the US is doing exactly what the those that oppose it want it to do, to be the bad guy. That's the only thing the extremist such as Al Queda want, for the US to use mercenary militaries, to torture, etc. That is their victory.

I don't entirely agree but I agree enough that it is not worth all the typing to expose and debate minor differences of opinion.

What I will say is that my philosophy is that the US should not be involved in any wars at all. If we weren't so damn interventionist we wouldn't have three-quarters of the rest of the world hating us and the remaining quarter intent on our destruction. Trade with all nations, alliances with none, don't get involved in foreign wars, all that crap. The world would be better off without us trying to fix everything all the time.

None of that precludes the use of mercenary forces, however. The world still needs help from time to time, and mercenaries are the perfect agencies to project American military force where it is needed without the political agenda and related nonsensical horse-crap that usually accompanies it. If a nation wants a military solution to a problem it can simply hire an American mercenary firm (or one of any other nationality) and that is that. Mercenaries will accomplish the task in the most efficient and public-friendly means possible, because that is what they do. We have already seen the drastic measures Blackwater has taken to avoid negative PR, including changing its own name and radicaly revamping its organization in a matter of months. It has to do such things or else it risks losing credibility, and credibility means a lot to consumers, whether they are individuals or nations. Nations themselves are not so subject to such concerns. Right or wrong, they are developed and seriously entrenched power structures with the life-earnings and lives of millions at their disposal.

As for the labour union-stuff, not sure what you mean with all that. In Finland the labour unions have done a pretty good job in securing all Finns with basic rights that even Canadians don't have and can't believe when we tell them. Feel welcome to visit and acquaint yourself.

Well I can't blame you for not understanding. Finland is Finland, and it is full of Finns. It is not a culturally diverse super-state whose whims can seriously affect the entire world both economically and politically. Whether or not Finnish labor unions are superior to US labor unions I cannot say, never having been there myself and without really understanding the culture. A quick glance at the finances of the Finnish government s per the CIA world factbook tells me that your nation is in debt and does not posess the economy to make your lifestyle sustainable. Your nation, as well as many others, has fallen prey to the belief that more unsustainable spending today will result in a sustainable future. Most of that belief is based upon hedged bets upon the US economy in the form of foregin investiture and monetary policy. Believe it or not, if the US suffers, your nation will suffer. We literally hold the weight of the world's economy on our shoulders and we are rapidly losing our strength because of unwise fiscal policy. Mark my words, there will come a day when US fiscal policy will really destroy the consumer base of the world's most prosperous and populous free nation and the resultant gap in demand will be felt all over the world, even moreso than the current recession.

I would, however, love to visit Finland sometime, as well as the rest of Scandanavia.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

There are evil people in corporations too and not just in governments. Corporations and big global companies aren't limited by treaties that govern the nations, they can and do crap on things such as human rights and antipollution measures. This serves as the base on which the US wants to build it's new, unrestricted mercenary military.

Originally Posted by Skybird

War should not risked to become object of market and economic enterprise again. It will bring oyu more war. It should be kept under national government'S control whether or not a naton declares war or not - not a board of profit-hungry entrepreneurs.

And here we come to the crux of my response to you and Skybird.

It is true that there are "evil" corporations to some extent. Whether or not calling any corporation evil is subject to debate. Corporations, after all, are comprised of people who are just trying to make a living by providing a product or service. There is nothing immoral about that. The actions they take can be considered immoral sometimes, particularly when they try to co-opt the state's fiat power to further their agendas, but does that make the whole corporation immoral? I think it does not.

Furthermore, though there may be many examples of firms, companies, and corporations acting in an immoral fashion, virtually all of these examples involve co-operation with the state. Even if every corporation in the world was inherently evil and devious they must still produce goods that you choose to buy or they will die. They can bombard you with advertising and try to influence your opinion in every way possible, but the ultimate responsibility lies with you, the person who is free to buy their products or boycott them. The person who is free to work for such an entity, or seek other employment. In a free-market environment, the responsibility lies with everyday people who make everyday choices, which is exactly where it belongs.

Corporations do not start wars because wars are counterproductive to trade and stability, which is something the vast majority of legitimate business needs to function. Even military companies cannot sustain themselves through war. People hire mercenaries with the understanding that there will be an end to the conflict and they expect results or they will not pay. States, on the other hand (and this is aimed squarely at you, Skybird, my longtime friend and respected adversary) have a tendency to prosecute ideological wars with hidden and often plutocratic motives that result in casualties and suffering that cannot be described by the English language. There are simply no adjectives that can adequately portray the amount of horrible, painful, literal, and spiritual death that states have committed and/or endorsed. Medieval mercenaries and the 30 years war and whatever else you can throw out be damned. All the casualties of mercenary conflict were still bought and paid for by states, and I am somewhat insulted by the idea that you would imply that paid mercenary companies were somehow responsible for the suffering and war that plagued our mother continent in the dark and medieval ages. Do you honestly believe that the existence of mercenaries somehow caused more conflict? You should take another look at the horrendous consequences of state conflict. There is nothing you can say, and no incident you can point to, where mercenary warfare resulted in more casualties than state warfare.

I will readily admit that I do not fully understand your as-yet unexplained views on a neo-feudal society and as such I am not prepared to dismiss them entirely but I will now and always remain steadfast on the view that feudalism itself was inherently wrong. The reason that feudal societies hired paid, professional mercenaries was because their own populace was too ignorant, poor, and inept to form a professional military force or afford proper equipment. The populace was made so because it was subject to the whims of an emplaced power structure that was doubly enforced by a religious power structure that discouraged literacy and individualism.

As a foolish aherent to protestant religion I swear to Christ the Saviour Almighty, I would really like to know what method lies behind your apparent madness, Sky. I have read tens of thousands of your words and spent countless hours contemplating them, but I still can't really figure out what makes you function in the way do. For the sake of my own sanity, please describe what makes you say the things you say. Spare nothing. If you think I am an idiot, just explain why you think so and why, but be honest. You have my word as a Christian, bound by the Nicene crede, that I will neither judge you nor condemn you.

[Skybird]

Your naivety stuns me time and again, Lance. No offence meant, but that's how it is. How one could ignore in such totality the difference between how theory claims things would be under ideal conditions, and how they really are if people are free to do like they want, I cannot even closely understand. Idealism that ignores human realities to such extents, is doomed to never become anything more than just this: an utopic, surreal ideal.

That's why I usually do not reply to you. You live in a different solar system than I do.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your naivety stuns me time and again, Lance. No offence meant, but that's how it is. How one could ignore in such totality the difference between how theory claims things would be under ideal conditions, and how they really are if people are free to do like they want, I cannot even closely understand. Idealism that ignores human realities to such extents, is doomed to never become anything more than just this: an utopic, surreal ideal.

That's why I usually do not reply to you. You live in a different solar system than I do.

And your naivety leaves me simlarly stunned, as does your apparent intelligence. How can you be so intelligent and perceptive and yet be so blind to the true nature of things? I prescribe a limited state that cannot be co-opted by private industry and you prescribe what, exactly?
Nonetheless, I often reply to your statements, and I do so in great detail, only to be met with the same tired, invalid responses.

You and I have sparred against each other in every topic from politics to trade to chess games. There has never been a clear winner, except for in the chess games, where I will fully and willingly acceed the title of Champion to you. Despite all you have taught me, I still cannot compete with you in that field, yet.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, Sky, but I fear for our continued friendly rivalry. I have tried to learn from you and I am sure that you have tried to learn from me, but we are approaching an ideological impasse. Thusly, since you are a man of honor in every sense of the word, I challenge you to an ideological debate. The results shall be determined by a poll of our peers. You are free to name the subject of the debate, so long as it is a subject we disagree upon.

In truth, I would rather meet you face-to-face, whether it be in debate or in a contest of arms, but I trust that this medium will suffice for the time being. Since I am a native English speaker and becuase most of the active contributors to this forum hail from the US I will grant you a 25% handicap in the final poll results.

Do you find these terms acceptable?