Mercenaries for Humanity

[Tydeus]

So, I came up with this on the bus:

A non-profit, humanitarian organization, but composed of mercenaries. Getting ethnically cleansed? Give us a ring, and we'll drop by with some heavily armed and armored soldiers who'll take care of your problem. We'll sell t-shirts and writbands. It'll be great.

"Making the world safer, one bullet at a time." (slogan)

In all seriousness, the idea is pretty simple. Basically, the UN, but with bullets. We wouldn't do regime change, and we'd try our best to get the support of the UN and/or other world powers. We'd be strictly non-profit, so we'd be able to take on cases with no possibility of monetary gain, like Darfur.

Darfur is actually sort of the archetypical "job" that Mercenaries for Humanity would take. Ethnic cleansing, defenseless refugees, not regime change, defense-oriented. Janjaweed come into a village, expecting to rape and pillage, and instead find a dozen soldiers. It'd be an international force dedicated to giving people their comuppance.

Eh?

[adamark]

You can't be a mercenary and be non-profit. A mercenary works for money, by definition.

I know of people who wanted to do something like this for Darfur (I am one of them), but in the end it's very difficult to really set it up. And you'll probably just end up as an unknown corpse in a foreign country. I'm told there are privately owned militias operating as mercenaries, but they are never sent in to protect innocent people like Darfurians. Instead they are usually paid by the US gov or by US corporations to defend US or corporate assets/interests overseas. Not fun at all :/

There are historical examples of this, look up the Abraham Lincoln Brigade that fought in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists.

[Mirai Gen]

Well, completely ignoring the non-profit mercenary thing, it basically sounds like you're trying to incite rebellion through an anrchistic USA terrorist group.

Also: Is there a point to this thread?

[Althane]

Technically, being a mercenary is illegal under law.

However, I have entertained the idea of starting a mercenary company (assuming I could get funding) for various reasons. Overall, if I ran it, it would fight, for money, for the side that I thought to be ethically right.

Of course, now this means that I can be attacked (politically) for fighting what I believe to be right. >_>

[42PETUNIAS]

It sounds solid, but the idea of mercenaries to help the people never really helps the world. you'd probably just end up being seen as another conflicting group, and would be disliked by the U.N. and major countries, despite whatever good you were hoping to bring to the world.

[Bells]

Actually... sounded a little like Klu Klux Klan....

[P-Sleazy]

You're also forgetting that you're gonna need some kind of training in your trade if you want to even be considered as an option for people to hire. LOTS and LOTS of training. Then you're also gonna need to have a bunch of permits to take your weapons across borders, or atleast find out where or who you can buy weapons from in said country. After that theres also the body armor that you might want to invest in. More training. Lots of people, You can't just go in with a few tens of people to protect a couple thousands. You'll be straining yourselves to thinly, not to mention you'll need to do shifts so everyone can sleep. More training from specialists. Then finally, you'll need some financial backing to start you up in the first place so you can become trained and armed and armored.

So thats a bit of the logistics you'll need to think about. Theres probably LOTS more than that still.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

If something like this went down, I don't see it working out well. Basically, what I forsee happening, is a number of people who join up with this sort of thing, do so entirely on the premise of being violent. People who don't take issue with killing another person, just as long as they've got an excuse.

Problem with that, is that it could easily get out of hand. People like that could easily start killing for the sake of killing, and that can easily happen if the situation devolves even a little bit.

Plus, what is the advantage of having it be a independent armed force, and not just the military to begin with? And why would it hold any more attraction than such legitimate established forces? I mean, I suppose if the UN started taking on volunteers to consist its troops, that could make some sense. But it'd still be the UN Armed Forces & not this Mercenary group you're thinking of.

SWB

[Krylo]

Plus, what is the advantage of having it be a independent armed force, and not just the military to begin with?A lack of political responsibility. As a mercenary force pledging allegiance to no country, you don't have to worry about the world political spectrum. You just go in, be violent, and leave. No need to pass it through congress. No need to worry about sending people off to die who may not be willing. No need to worry about how the people back home are going to react. No need to worry about international politics. You just do it. I mean, I suppose if the UN started taking on volunteers to consist its troops, that could make some sense. But it'd still be the UN Armed Forces & not this Mercenary group you're thinking of.See above, and then add onto that the fact that dictorial countries ARE in the UN and get their votes as to where the UN goes. I don't know if Darfur is, exactly, but I know many of the dictorial regimes in the middle east and northern africa which commit such atrocities do, infact, have UN seats. Which is why the UN is basically castrated to do anything about dictatorships.

I mean, I agree that it's basically as fruitless idea, and there's far too many problems, and you're going to need a lot of money to start, and how do you screen applicants? etc. etc. However... I can see the draw of the idea.

[Loyal]

For purposes of clarification, the organization shall henceforth in this post be referred to as the Freelance Police Army, or FPA.

This sounds kinda like the idea for Command and Conquer's GDI: A military force, essentially the global police force, is dispatched by world leaders to take care of major conflicts as an independant army, not commissioned by the countries fighting themselves.

Of course, then there's the matter of Nod popping up, but seeing as the FPA would be a purely mercenary force, nobody's going to rally impovershed, third-world countries into a massive guerrila superpower under the banner of overthrowing the upright, corrupt governments and their pet army.

However, even if the FPA was approved by the UN in general, dictators and others with reason to fear being overrun would undoubtedly try to disband it, through legal tribunals or outright force.

Armies would be dispatched "by coincidence" to where the FPA is doing their most recent job, on the other side for loosely veiled reasons. Counter-mercenary armies would rise up, funded by the FPA's enemies. The 'good guys' (meaning those who would support the FPA's actions) may or may not, directly or indirectly, back the FPA in its efforts.

Either way, unless the FPA was disbanded, there would probably be a third world war... but that's just my theory.

[Tydeus]

OK -- I finally tore myself away from GoW long enough to post in my own thread! :P

For purposes of clarification, the organization shall henceforth in this post be referred to as the Freelance Police Army, or FPA.

This sounds kinda like the idea for Command and Conquer's GDI: A military force, essentially the global police force, is dispatched by world leaders to take care of major conflicts as an independant army, not commissioned by the countries fighting themselves.

Well, the idea is that the FPA wouldn't be tied necessarily to any particular government. They'd have their own agenda, which they'd try to garner political support for around the world, but the FPA would dictate its own targets. That way, the FPA could largely avoid those troubles which result from competing national interests. I mean, it's not like the US is really compelled to defend Darfurians of African ethnicity, so, it'd be hard to paint the FPA with a national allegiance.

However, even if the FPA was approved by the UN in general, dictators and others with reason to fear being overrun would undoubtedly try to disband it, through legal tribunals or outright force.

Well, yes. But, there are several reasons why that wouldn't be a terribly big deal. For one, those kind of dictatorial regimes that might directly suffer as the result of FPA action are generally not very powerful in the UN. I mean, it's not like Sudan sits on the Security council.

Furthermore, though UN approval would be desired, it wouldn't be necessary to the FPA. Informal support would be all that's required. And, at least at the beginning, the FPA would be a small force, which means such dictators wouldn't really have much to fear. In addition, the FPA would have a strict policy against regime change. I suppose, in truly extreme cases, the FPA might defend civilians from the armies of official regimes, but there would be no offensive effort to dethrone anyone.

Armies would be dispatched "by coincidence" to where the FPA is doing their most recent job, on the other side for loosely veiled reasons. Counter-mercenary armies would rise up, funded by the FPA's enemies. The 'good guys' (meaning those who would support the FPA's actions) may or may not, directly or indirectly, back the FPA in its efforts.

This seems improbable, for several reasons. First among them is the "no regime change" rule. Most dictatorial governments wouldn't have anything to fear from the FPA. And even those that did wouldn't have to worry about the FPA throwing them out of power. It also seems unlikely that poorly funded and equipped militia organizations (I mean, there are janjaweed militiamen out there with machetes) would be able to band together into a powerful international force which would set out to destroy the FPA so they could all continue their respective atrocities. These are not people who work well with others.

Most third-world nations would never see an FPA soldier reach their soil. It's not like the FPA would strictly be a tool of first-world nations to exact punishment unofficially on other nations. The FPA would be totally autonomous.

Either way, unless the FPA was disbanded, there would probably be a third world war... but that's just my theory.

Well, that seems a little pessimistic, to say the least. See, the FPA would make special effort to avoid controversy. Darfur is a good example of an FPA mission because there's a general global consensus that what's happening there is bad. For the most part, the Sudanese governement and their puppet militia are on their own. I doubt the FPA would arouse much international ire by defending innocent civilians from ethnic cleansing by a generally insignificant regime with few or no allies.

The FPA wouldn't intervene in controversial conflicts, such as Israel-Palestine, no matter how much they might want to. There's just too much a lack of international consensus. Hell, there isn't even consensus within most nations on that topic. I'm not taking a side on the Israel-Palestine issue, before anyone goes off on that -- I'm just saying, no matter which side a hypothetical FPA would hypothetically aid, people will get pissed off. Lots and lots of them, and that would just make the FPA's job a lot harder. So, the FPA would focus on international problems which are not controversial, or at least as non-controversial as is possible.

You can't be a mercenary and be non-profit. A mercenary works for money, by definition.

OK, but you get my general idea. That's why I'm going with Loyal2NES's name of "FPA"

I know of people who wanted to do something like this for Darfur (I am one of them), but in the end it's very difficult to really set it up.

Well of course. There are enormous logistical difficulties. But, with sufficient time and money, they could be worked out. In the end, if the cause is worthy, it seems that one should be willing to work for years, decades, to see it come to fruition.

And you'll probably just end up as an unknown corpse in a foreign country.

Two responses to this: (1) This is where my nerd fantasies get the best of me. Since it would probably be a small force, at least at first, the FPA would have both reason and capability to spend a lot more cash per soldier. Assuming adequate start-up funds (probably from a small number of very wealthy donors, at least at first), the FPA could afford bleeding-edge equipment for its troops, since there wouldn't be very many. Ever heard of "Liquid Metal"? It's a brand name for this unique, non-crystalline metal, which I believe is actually technically a very viscous liquid, but is for all intents and purposes a solid.

Anyway, it's incredibly durable -- stonger than any known metal alloy. Plus, since it's not crystalline, it bounces back when pressure is applied. It's like rubber, but to a far smaller degree. And metal. It's also very light-weight. It's basically ideal for protecting against personnel-based weapons. Not only is it more durable than titanium -- so therefore it can absorb more kinetic energy without deforming -- but it also absorbs way less energy from any impact.

The FPA could use that kind of stuff for body armor. Basically impenetrable, and fairly lightweight (it wouldn't have to be very thick, either, since it's so strong). Hell, go all out GoW-style with the armor -- full body coverage. Yeah, it'd be heavy, but the FPA could train its soldiers in more, ah, unorthodox ways. For instance, supplimenting physical training with human growth hormone, or, given that it will probably be decades before any force of this kind would be assembled, genetic modification. Heavy armor, but with incredibly strong soldiers.

And of course they're going up against people who are wielding machetes. These genocidal militias tend to be very poorly trained and equipped.

Nerd sci-fi fantasies aside, there are causes worth dying for. I'd rather die with meaning in my life than live into feeble old-age without it. Of course, that's a personal thing, but there are people out there like that. Lots of 'em. Most volunteer soldiers think that way.

I'm told there are privately owned militias operating as mercenaries, but they are never sent in to protect innocent people like Darfurians. Instead they are usually paid by the US gov or by US corporations to defend US or corporate assets/interests overseas. Not fun at all :/

Yeah, like the Blackwater Corp. (That's the name, right?). But, again, since this would be non-profit, donation-based, etc, the FPA wouldn't have to take profitable missions. The FPA would just do what's right (by general global consensus). That means the FPA wouldn't just sit around guarding oil pipelines.

Well, completely ignoring the non-profit mercenary thing, it basically sounds like you're trying to incite rebellion through an anrchistic USA terrorist group.

Really? I'm not sure how -- if you elucidate further, maybe I could clear up some misconceptions. As is, I'm not really sure why you think that, so I can't answer.

Also: Is there a point to this thread?

Just to debate the merits of such an organization.

It sounds solid, but the idea of mercenaries to help the people never really helps the world. you'd probably just end up being seen as another conflicting group, and would be disliked by the U.N. and major countries, despite whatever good you were hoping to bring to the world.

Well, there would probably be resistance to the FPA at first, but they could prove themselves fairly easily, one way or the other; it's an organization which would produce results (good or bad) no matter what, and could thus be judged easily. And, fundamentally, I don't think there's any inherent flaw in the idea of people using force for the good of humanity. Especially if their judicious, avoid aggression, and only use it in cases where there is a general global consensus.

You're also forgetting that you're gonna need some kind of training in your trade if you want to even be considered as an option for people to hire. LOTS and LOTS of training. <snip> So thats a bit of the logistics you'll need to think about. Theres probably LOTS more than that still.

Yeah, there would be lots of logistical issues, but nothing insurmountable. It's just a matter of time and money. As to international permits for transporting weapons, etc, I think transporting weapons out of countries wouldn't be tremendously difficult, especially if those countries are supportive of the FPA (and the FPA would probably go to one of those countries to headquarter themselves, or at least would buy weapons in those countries. If none are supportive, the FPA would buy munitions in countries with lax regulations, or none at all), and as to transporting in -- well, a lot of times the governement would be against it, like in Darfur. In that case, since the gov is participating in the genocide, the FPA would just ignore the proper legal proceedings, and head on in. After all, the Sudanese gov would never let an FPA-style force into their country if they could prevent it, so the FPA would probably just have to launch from Chad (after clearing out the janjaweed who've already moved into Chad), and work their way into Sudan.

If something like this went down, I don't see it working out well. Basically, what I forsee happening, is a number of people who join up with this sort of thing, do so entirely on the premise of being violent. People who don't take issue with killing another person, just as long as they've got an excuse.

Problem with that, is that it could easily get out of hand. People like that could easily start killing for the sake of killing, and that can easily happen if the situation devolves even a little bit.

Well, yeah, it could. But there's no reason that willingness to kill couldn't be a force harnessed for good. I mean, pretty much any powerful force can be harnessed for good, but has potential for evil. Look at capitalism. Sometimes, it can be harnessed (through, say, taxation) for good. Sometimes, if not properly channelled, it can do great harm. Same things with these kind of people. I mean, look at all the private "security" companies in Iraq. They're filled with Special Ops kind of guys, who tend to be sociopaths. Still, there hasn't been any international outcry over the conduct of these guys. The U.S. military is under more criticism. Partly, this is due to the smaller size of these mercenary forces. You can just keep better tabs on everyone, and you can more thoroughly evaluate candidates for the job.

Plus, what is the advantage of having it be a independent armed force, and not just the military to begin with? And why would it hold any more attraction than such legitimate established forces? I mean, I suppose if the UN started taking on volunteers to consist its troops, that could make some sense. But it'd still be the UN Armed Forces & not this Mercenary group you're thinking of.

I think Kryo answered this quite well, so I'll let his answer stand in for mine.

I mean, I agree that it's basically as fruitless idea, and there's far too many problems, and you're going to need a lot of money to start, and how do you screen applicants? etc. etc. However... I can see the draw of the idea.

Well, I think most of the problems can be solved simply with time and fundraising. Why, specifically, do you think that it would be fruitless? I can't really answer unless you give specifics. I mean, I'm sure you have good reasons -- there are definitely flaws, and possibility for failure. But, still, specifics would help.

OK. That's my huge, overblown, essay-length post of the day. XP

[Demetrius]

Sounds much like power with no checks in place. Also aren't the dictators/current warlords the ones in power and commiting the genocides?
It would just not work; the world voting on everything? I mean we barely make it through elections and now you want to bring guns and killing and declarations of right and helping the oppressed into it... Man you sound like Bush. Altruistic reasoning never works.

[PsychicKid]

LETS SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH MORE VIOLENCE

Yeah, real smart.

[42PETUNIAS]

LETS SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH MORE VIOLENCE

Yeah, real smart.

That seems really naive to me- its not like using violence to stop a violent act never works, do you think we could have taken Hitler out of germany without violence? Violence has the potential to do good things, but in this case there aren't enough checks and balances to keep the violence doing good things, and the mercs would probably end up doing bad things and becoming corrupted by their power, and with no specific group holding power over them, there would be nothing to hold them back.

[PsychicKid]

That seems really naive to me- its not like using violence to stop a violent act never works, do you think we could have taken Hitler out of germany without violence? Violence has the potential to do good things, but in this case there aren't enough checks and balances to keep the violence doing good things, and the mercs would probably end up doing bad things and becoming corrupted by their power, and with no specific group holding power over them, there would be nothing to hold them back.

This is true, but in this situation you are right about there not being enough checks anc balances to make sure these guys do good things. More than likely they'd just run loose and rebel or some crap.

The problem is there is a very fine line when it comes to deciding if violence should be used to stop a problem or not. In a lot of cases, it'll just breed more violence.

[Bells]

Like i said... the more i read this, the more i think that this idea mirrors the K.K.K.

[Preturbed]

Like i said... the more i read this, the more i think that this idea mirrors the K.K.K.

I can't think of a single way in which this is true. Except that both are violent.

[Mesden]

I can't think of a single way in which this is true. Except that both are violent.

Killing for what you think is morally right.

The KKK did that exact thing, no matter how wrong they were.

[Demetrius]

Actually anyone watch Full Metal Panic... Mithril anyone?

(Edit)
*waves to Mesden* Hey you are still around!

[Mesden]

That I am.


Well, I think most of the problems can be solved simply with time and fundraising. Why, specifically, do you think that it would be fruitless? I can't really answer unless you give specifics. I mean, I'm sure you have good reasons -- there are definitely flaws, and possibility for failure. But, still, specifics would help.

You pretty much answer yourself.

Now really, problems with funding? In all honesty, how much do you think it would take to finance an effective force? Equipment, training, extensive travel, paying the soldiers themselves, living expenses for these missions. I'm thinking in the upwards of several billion for it to be a more than one-shot maneuver.

After that, where do you expect to get the amount of people that stand for the causes? No no, I'm fairly sure that most people hate the situation in Darfur, but what about every other fight that your organization that fights for 'ethics' would have to take a toll on? People are very different and will disagree at the slightest thing, no matter how alike they think. It's BEGGING for internal conflict to fight for ethics alone.

And on the note of overall morale, what about outside influence? While you may remain politically undefined, there are individuals who will be entirely against you (As there is for everything, really) and possibly attack you for these actions. And further become violent against you. It'll hit your 'soldiers' who themselves are very rare. Not to mention their families could be targets for people with disdain for your 'cause'. The necessary amount of soliders you would need would already be a very hard number to attain, now add in the several types of morale hits they can take, and you've got a most likely stagnant force.

And, whether you want it or not, some big political gun will support you, use your cause as something to bolster them. In this, you'll gain (Supposedly unwanted) support, and even if you refuse, you'll gain enemies from this. No matter how politically uninvolves you are, politicians as enemies is a heavy problem to what they could do to you and your soldiers AND their families.

All this aside, there are still other problems. Like, if you're a militant organization, you're going to lose soliders. The soldiers themselves and the frequency of them is already a static problem, so how do you expect to replenish a scarce number because the other ones died?

Nice idea, thoughtful, but fruitless? I believe so. Too many problems to really get off the ground and stay in the sky.

[Gorefiend]

Throughout this debate, a few things have remained unclear. Who would lead this force? Even if you got down and got everything else you need, how would the FPA be structured? Who would be the generals? Who would be the more political/bureaucratic leaders? Would there be a distinction? Who would pick deployment sites? What basis would be used to pick such sites? How much power would generals/politicians/bureaucrats have in picking places to deploy? How would any high ranking, powerful positions be assigned at first? Afterwards? Any term lengths or the like? How would you regulate the merc's activities in "base" areas? How would the mercs (individually and as groups) be tied to their home countries? Their base countries?

After all, these are the questions that, in my opinion, mark the line between a benign (insofar as a military with no flag can be benign) organization, and some sort of world-wide Praetorian/Janissary Guard lobbying for political power or funding or something. Not saying it'd happen immediately, but people with guns tend to create tensions, which the people in charge of the people with guns like to exploit.

[Tydeus]

Once again, I've totally neglected my own thread in favor of Gears of War. Just got the Hammer of Dawn achievement (my 3rd weapon achievement after chainsaw and curb-stomp. Yeah, weird order, I know). Anyway...

You pretty much answer yourself.

Now really, problems with funding? In all honesty, how much do you think it would take to finance an effective force? Equipment, training, extensive travel, paying the soldiers themselves, living expenses for these missions. I'm thinking in the upwards of several billion for it to be a more than one-shot maneuver.

Oh, absolutely funding is a big issue. Of course if you deposit even only $25 a month for something like 30 years into a compound-interest savings account, you end up with upwards of $1 million. Now, if, like me, you really would ever only need a studio apartment, not too nice, not in a trendy neighborhood, with minimal purchases (basically food, occasionally clothes, and tech stuff), you can put away a lot more than $25 each month. If I save for, say, 20-25 years, putting away a thousand or so each month, I could have some decent start-up funding. Mainly, because the FPA would start out small. I really should have specified this -- I mean, at the beginning, as few as two dozen soldiers. Yeah, you aren't gonna stop genocide with that few soldiers, I know. However, you can protect some civilians, and you can garner a whole hell of a lot of free media attention, which you can use to funnel donations into your bank account, and people into your uniforms.

Now, a force that small is acceptable because (a) most of the time genocide these days seems to be carried out by small death-squads roaming from village to village, which means you won't ever be terribly outnumbered in any given confrontation (if outnumbered at all), and (b) the FPA would be spending tens of thousands of dollars per soldier, in an attempt to basically make them indestructible, especially by the low-tech means of most genocidal assholes. It's very difficult to shoot someone if they're encased in inch-thick armor plating of the world's most durable metal alloy (whatever that may be in twenty years). And they can carry all that shit around because either (a) we pump 'em full of HGH/genetically manipulate them, or (b) power-suits (like the ones those Standford grad students built about six months ago that the military is totally contracted them to further perfect) finally come to fruition in the next 20 years.

Major militaries just can't afford to make all their soldiers into super-soldiers. Imagine equipping 140,000 soldiers with $50,000 worth of equipment, just to start off with. That's $7 billion right there, not to mention that since regular soldiers rotate out on tours of duty, that means fitting every new soldier with their own suit of armor, extensively training, etc. You just can't do it. However, if you have 10-30 soldiers signing up for 16-year tours at 50k a pop, that's a mere 0.5-1.5 million bucks. Small change by comparison. You can save that shit up.

So, if you're pretty much guaranteed to not lose soldiers, just through sheer technological advantage, you can have fewer of them.

After that, where do you expect to get the amount of people that stand for the causes? No no, I'm fairly sure that most people hate the situation in Darfur, but what about every other fight that your organization that fights for 'ethics' would have to take a toll on? People are very different and will disagree at the slightest thing, no matter how alike they think. It's BEGGING for internal conflict to fight for ethics alone.

Why would this be different from other militaries, in the chain-of-command aspect? The FPA would have leaders, and grunts. The leaders make the decisions, the foot-soldiers carry out the orders (though in the FPA, you could expect a general to personally take the field, Roman-style. If you're willing to put other people's lives on the line for a cause, you better fucking be willing to put your own damn life on that line, too). Among the high-ranking officers, of course there'd be disagreements, but that's true of any military. The bottom line is you have a decision making process (by vote, by weighted vote, by decision of founder, or whatever else) and you use that to sort out the issues. And, again, a small force. Even after garnering a lot of media attention, the FPA would recruit slowly, to ensure each and every soldier is a serious investment by the FPA. This would keep the organization tightly-knit, ensuring a greater level of camraderie, obedience, and stability. When the generals eat their meals side-by-side with the grunts, the leaders can keep tabs on their organization.

Even as the FPA would grow, it would remain a relatively small force. Under 25,000 soldiers, certainly, perhaps under 10,000 -- really, it would be as small as possible. After all, let me reiterate that we're talking about 10,000 of the best damn soldiers you can find. Extensive training, dedication, moral purpose, and more arms and armor than you can shake a stick at. Everyone conscious of their ethical imperative to be a part of that organization. Everyone, from top to bottom, sticking their necks out for humanity. It's a different kind of organization.

And on the note of overall morale, what about outside influence? While you may remain politically undefined, there are individuals who will be entirely against you (As there is for everything, really) and possibly attack you for these actions. And further become violent against you. It'll hit your 'soldiers' who themselves are very rare.
Well, the FPA'd just have to tough it out. Any organization with a moral purpose worth its salt has managed to slog through that kind of opposition. Why in the world would that persuade you to stop doing what you're doing? If you're already putting your life on the line for the cause at hand, what leverage do people have over you? You're much freer, really. All the societal restrictions that add up to one big prison -- well, fuck 'em. If you volunteer for the FPA, you've forgone those individualistic goals that our modern society trumpets as the only goals worth having. You've forgone that nice house in the cul-de-sac (or the gated community, or the apartment in SoHo, whatever your inclination is), the nice car to go with it, and the nice stuff to sit incide. You've even forgone the nice family to live in it with you. Of course, once you're out, you can do all that, but while you're in it? You are so much more resiliant, independant, and free. Reject society, and what can people who endorse it possibly do to punish you?

Anyway, if people got violent agianst the FPA, well, they'd at least know how to respond. But, likely, I doubt the FPA would encounter violent opposition outside of the people they've decided to fight. Again, we're talking about combating genocide, since no one else is gonna fucking do it. Who really is going to get pissed off about people doing something in Darfur, except the Arab militias themselves? And as to missions beyond Darfur -- again, Darfur is the archetype. That near-consensus of the whole world that the shit going on there is unacceptable is a necessity. That way, you really just tend to not piss people off. And, again, these soldiers are already laying their lives on the line, so, well, how does the threat of death make them stop being part of the FPA?

Not to mention their families could be targets for people with disdain for your 'cause'. The necessary amount of soliders you would need would already be a very hard number to attain, now add in the several types of morale hits they can take, and you've got a most likely stagnant force.
Well, I don't see many people attacking U.S. soldiers' families, politically or physically, despite the general contempt for the Iraq war. Furthermore, when you sign up for a sixteen-year tour (well, between 10 and 20. I chose 16 because it was a standard Roman tour of duty), or a lifetime tour (16 is minimum), you probably don't have a family of your own (as in wife/husband and kids) at home, and if you do, you're such an irresponsible jackass that you won't by the time you get home.

Again, this is a force that would do its best to be composed of people essentially, with nothing to lose. Not that they're desperate, but that the construct of modern society does not imprison them. For what is society but a prison? A freedom-restricting mechanism for maintaining a hierarchy of power. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing -- far from it. Without society, you just end up with Hobbes' whole shpiel. All I'm sayin' is that some people don't or can't confrom to their society, in their time. The FPA is for these people. I am one of these people. The incentives to stay within the prison walls as just not compelling enough for me (and many others). When doing something meaningful is all that matters to you, to the point of sacrificing yourself, then it's damn hard to disuade you. In fact, you really can't.

And, whether you want it or not, some big political gun will support you, use your cause as something to bolster them. In this, you'll gain (Supposedly unwanted) support, and even if you refuse, you'll gain enemies from this. No matter how politically uninvolves you are, politicians as enemies is a heavy problem to what they could do to you and your soldiers AND their families.
Well, who exactly would be going after the soldiers and soldiers' families? Because, again, I'm just not seeing that backlash against U.S. soldiers despite the unpopular war and partisan use of soldiers to try to garner political support. I just don't see it happening. Also, support in what manner? Endorse us? Sure, so long as you yourself aren't a turd (by the FPA's determination). No reason to refuse endorsements (agian, unless the endorser is a jerk). Now, there would be no official, or monetary connections with any nations, however. And no national government would ever dictate the goals of the FPA. But if people want to publicize the FPA and promote public support and donations, then why refuse? It's just those really binding kinds of influence the FPA would refuse, like big monetary donations by politicians/parties/governments. Maybe the FPA would accept cash if it were funneled through the UN, as that might neutralize any kind of national connection to the cash.

All this aside, there are still other problems. Like, if you're a militant organization, you're going to lose soliders. The soldiers themselves and the frequency of them is already a static problem, so how do you expect to replenish a scarce number because the other ones died?
Like I said -- small force, so replenishing reserves would be easier than with a very large force. Also, long terms of service, with lifetime commitment being encouraged ("lifetime" of course referring to however long you can fight for. Obviously if you're an infirm 82-year-old, you won't be on the front-lines anymore). And, finally, a massive investment of cash into each soldier to prevent deaths (and they'd generally be fighting some pretty piss-poor paramilitary organizations). And, considering that the kind of person the FPA would attract/desire, those supposed morale-hits would really have little or no effect.

Nice idea, thoughtful, but fruitless? I believe so. Too many problems to really get off the ground and stay in the sky.
I think continued funding is really the biggest problem -- that whole "stay in the sky" part. Getting of the ground definitely seems feasible, to me, but whether or not the organization would actually suvive seems uncertain. That's what worries me, as being the weak point of the whole thing. After all, as a non-profit, it would depend on the public, to a large degree. However, I think that a lot of people would find the dramatic, powerful results of a military humanitarian organization to be pretty appealing. While other humanitarian organizations are being forced out of Darfur, the FPA would be charging in. That has a kind of romantic appeal that makes people donate.

Still, it could all very, very easily fall apart. But, really, I think the only thing that hinges on is continued funding.

And, even if it all came to naught, I'd know I'd tried to be someone important, to do something meaningful. If it's worth it for you to lose your life over it, then losing all your money is not really so bad.

Throughout this debate, a few things have remained unclear. Who would lead this force?
Well, uh, me. Since it's my idea, I'd be the one to implement it (unless someone went and did it first). I mean, this is not just a hypothetical debate -- this is what I would love to do. I can't imagine a better life. As founder, I suppose I'd be the official leader.

Even if you got down and got everything else you need, how would the FPA be structured?
In a fairly standard manner. Small number of leaders, below them officers of varying rank, and finall the grunts. Of course they'd all be fighting on the front-lines, though.

Who would be the generals?
Well, probably they'd be drawn from whoever constituted the original force (of 10-30 soldiers), since these would likely be people I'd personally know, trust, and respect, and who would be dedicated to the cause, in a "for-life" kind of way. Of course, if actual generals/other military commanding officers were to ditch their post for the FPA (or come out of retirement), they'd be put to good use as high-ranking officers and leaders.

Who would be the more political/bureaucratic leaders? Would there be a distinction?
No.

Who would pick deployment sites?
The generals/leaders. I suppose either we'd vote, or the vote would be weighted (according to rank, length of service, demerits, commendations, etc.), or ultimately I would just make the decision. I'm not sure which approach would be best, but, again, these would be the kind of people who'd be able to talk it out into some kind of general agreement -- people who care about the best choice, not just their own.

What basis would be used to pick such sites?

How dire the situation is, how much international consensus there is on the subject, how clear-cut the sides are, and tactical considerations. Basically, what the leaders think is right. And, though you might not believe it, a group of fairly unaccountable leaders often comes up with the best solutions, since they don't have to pander. Of course, one assumes that the leaders (and I) would alway remember that we depend on volunteers to fight with us, so, we couldn't just abuse our power without consequence. A minority rule is inherently easier to keep in check than a majority. All the majority has to do is say "fuck you! We won't do it, asshole." Then the minority has to go and fix some mistakes to make it worth it for the majority to go along with the minority's plan. Also, some ethical standards would have to be codified into some kind of internal constitution. Like "no regime change." Of course with the power to amend.

How much power would generals/politicians/bureaucrats have in picking places to deploy?
Total.

How would any high ranking, powerful positions be assigned at first? Afterwards?.
"Before" -- adressed above. "After" -- by merit. That is, promotions by the preceding leaders. Basically the same as any military, but with a bit more meritocracy. A private could become a general some day, if they proved themselves worthy.

Any term lengths or the like?
Yup. Sixteen years minimum, up through lifetime service. I think, in general, the kind of people who would join up would be the kind who believe in it enough to sign up for life. That's the kind we'd want, anyway.

How would you regulate the merc's activities in "base" areas?
Codified regulations, like any organization of people, really. Ignore the rules, lose priveleges. Ignore too big a rule, or ignore rules too many times, and you get kicked out, lose pension, etc.

How would the mercs (individually and as groups) be tied to their home countries? Their base countries?
Home -- I suppose they might have residences there, and one assumes they'd still vote (assuming they came from a democratic nation) as absentees. But, generally, it seems probable that there are enough slaughters and atrocities in the world to keep them pretty much permanently occupied overseas, assuming that we aren't acting in their home country. No reason we couldn't take on mercs from those nations. In fact, it'd probably be a good idea, for culutural & lingusitic translation.

Base -- they'd basically live in base countries for, probably, all of their years of service. Again, think Roman. Legionnaires didn't really get to go home 'til they were out of the service. What with these "aeroplane" contraptions these days, I suppose they might get to fly home for the rare home-leave. After all, we'd want to emphasize that this is their new life.

After all, these are the questions that, in my opinion, mark the line between a benign (insofar as a military with no flag can be benign) organization, and some sort of world-wide Praetorian/Janissary Guard lobbying for political power or funding or something. Not saying it'd happen immediately, but people with guns tend to create tensions, which the people in charge of the people with guns like to exploit.
Of course. My main antidote to this is the small size of the force, and the no-regime change thing. And the fact that the leaders aren't isolated from the foot-soldiers. When you fight alongside your soldiers, you don't want to be fighting a pointless war. That's really a damn good way to encourage responsible use of power.

Sounds much like power with no checks in place. Also aren't the dictators/current warlords the ones in power and commiting the genocides?
Well, just because people aren't held democratically accountable doens't mean they'll make bad decisions. Again, Rome. There is nothing inherently good or bad about either a minority or a majority in power. Both really just depend on who those people are, and the ethical standards they abide by. Caesar may have been a dictator, but you sure didn't hear the Roman poor complaining.

It would just not work; the world voting on everything? I mean we barely make it through elections and now you want to bring guns and killing and declarations of right and helping the oppressed into it...
No, the world wouldn't vote on it. That's the point -- a private organization wouldn't require official approval. Just that the general, informal consensus would be taken as a very important consideration into directing where to deploy. Darfur -- general consensus? Yes. Official UN decision to send troops? No. Why? Because though the nations involved believe it to be wrong, they aren't willing to intervene at their own expense. Hence, the FPA. That's the whole point.

I exceeded 20,000 characters per post, so, this post is continued below.

[Tydeus]

Man you sound like Bush. Altruistic reasoning never works.

Never? Really? So, what exactly are the implications of that claim? That people shouldn't ever do anything if they don't personally benefit? Doesn't all of humanity benefit from a more stable world, with more productive citizens living in productive countries with productive infrastructures? So, first of all, the whole idea of "altruism" is flawed. Basically, there is no such thing. You don't ever do anything unless you want to. It's true -- sometimes part of you might not want to do something, but you do it because you want to avoid the consequences of not doing it. You pay your taxes because you want to. There is no such thing as an act you do that in no way benefits yourself. Well, except by mistake, perhaps.

I think what you're saying actually is essentially this:
Killing for what you think is morally right.

The KKK did that exact thing, no matter how wrong they were.
Now, I don't know if Mesden actually thinks that killing for what you think is morally right is always wrong, but I think Bellsouth does (Mesden's quote here is in response to Bellsouth, who drew the KKK comparison, originally).

It's such meekness, lack of will, to believe that no one is ever justified for acting on what they think is right, if that comes at the expense of someone else. We are obsessed with empirical answers, but when it comes to right and wrong, good and bad, should and shouldn't, when it comes to why, we all stop being empirical. If you're strictly empirical, nothing, and I mean nothing has purpose, or meaning, or reason. You just are. After all, why do? There's no empirical reason to value or do anything. Empirical evidence can, however, be used to substantiate philosohical/moral/ethical claims.

Just because moral philosophies are unempirical doesn't make them all equally invalid to be applied to the world and other people. That's so self-loathing! It's such an admission and acceptance of weakness, powerlessness, and baseness! You are insulting yourself and everything you are when you say this! Don't abuse yourself so! I implore you to have some self-condifidence and pride!

Now, of course, such things as self-confidence are different from certainty and stubbornness. If someone has better reasoning and more evidence behind their claims, then by all means, accept their view, or better yet, synthesize the two ideologies in what can only be described as Hegel's wet-dream.

If no one is willing to assert themselves morally, then no advancement is made, no conflict is had. Stagnant, is what the world would become.

Why do we even have logic, reason, rhetoric, argument, if not to evalute, and then synthesize worldviews? Moral views? Courses of action? Why not be an animal if you feel you are no more valuable than anyone or anything else? Have some freakin' pride, man! Humlility is for people who don't believe in themeselves. If you think you're right, then why in hell shouldn't you trumpet your views to the whole goddamn world? Just, remember that to benefit from logic, reason, rhetoric, evaluation, you have to play by their rules, and that means admitting when you are wrong.

But if we require either empirical proof of our beliefs, or that our beliefs will never harm anyone, then we'll never do anything!

I may not like it when people try to limit my rights to marry, etc., but damn if I don't understand the impulse that compels them to do it! They want to conserve the traditions that are the very foundations of their lives, and as they see it, the world. However, I think logic, reason, rhetoric, and evalutation are there so we can say, "but wait, that's bullshit."

Wonder why liberals have been underdogs for quite some time here in the US? (it's hard to imagine the Dems winning the presidency in '08, or even maintaining our majority for very long, not to mention that many Dems who've been elected got to the House by pandering to conservatives on social issues) No spine. No willingness to stand up and say -- "hey, you know what? I've got some serious reasoning and evidence behind my beliefs, and I'll be damned If I'm not justified -- no, compelled, as a human being, with sapience, with ethics, with reason! -- to act accordingly!"

If everyone just were open-minded about evaluating viewpoints, the world would still have plenty of disagreement, but damn if we wouldn't have a lot fewer fucking fanatics.

Asserting your beliefs, even at the expense of others is not, and never has been fanaticism. Refusing to change those beliefs, even in the face of stronger reason and evidence? That's fucking fanaticism.

And, believe me, I'm no hypocrite on this topic. I always assert myself forcefully, but I sure have been convinced to modify, even abandon my views on various topics throughout my life. And so it should be!

If no one is willing to make a little friction, then we end up with a cold world.

[42PETUNIAS]

How soon are you planning on setting this up? Realistically, since you said you wanted to do it, when would you start gaining funding, etc.

Also, you seem to be acting like this would be a group of troops with some leaders thrown in. You'd almost certainly need medics, pilots, people to handle funds and official work, and probably a pshychiatrist. Plus, in Darfur for example, the jangaweed is backed up by sudanian planes. While a strong but small group of mercenaries could fight the jangaweed, air forces would give you much more of a problem.

The group would also be very vulnerable to corruption. If just one of the soldiers was bribed or compelled to do something, he could have a disastrous effect on the small group. Not to mention the fact that starting out, it would be difficult to get the funds you need, and relying on a few rich donors, combined with your desperation, could easily lead to you being influenced in your actions.

[Darth SS]

The more I read about this, the more I have the exact same thought.

"This looks great on paper, and would probably be an okay book, but at the end of the it's just a naive science fiction dream concocted with the sole idea that shooting solves everything."

[Tydeus]

How soon are you planning on setting this up? Realistically, since you said you wanted to do it, when would you start gaining funding, etc.

Also, you seem to be acting like this would be a group of troops with some leaders thrown in. You'd almost certainly need medics, pilots, people to handle funds and official work, and probably a pshychiatrist. Plus, in Darfur for example, the jangaweed is backed up by sudanian planes. While a strong but small group of mercenaries could fight the jangaweed, air forces would give you much more of a problem.

Well, indeed there would have to be a sort of bureaucratic side to the organization, along with medics, etc. I just thought it was sort of assumed. But, yes, of course, we would need those people.

And, you're quite right, as to the whole air-power thing. I don't really have an answer to this, as someone who's not generally a big military buff. I mean, there are surface-to-air missiles, but I don't know whether or not those have personnel-based platforms (or if there might be such platforms in 20 years). The only answer I have to that, at the beginning (as the organization grows, either planes could be purchased, or, much more cost-effectively, lots of missles on larger platforms), is to make it difficult for air-forces to keep track of such a small force by moving quickly, and almost constantly, with an attempt to disable/destroy planes when they're on the ground. But, in general, the FPA would try to avoid forces with air-power, at first, anyway.

The group would also be very vulnerable to corruption. If just one of the soldiers was bribed or compelled to do something, he could have a disastrous effect on the small group. Not to mention the fact that starting out, it would be difficult to get the funds you need, and relying on a few rich donors, combined with your desperation, could easily lead to you being influenced in your actions.

Huh. Well, I honestly hadn't thought of that one. I guess my only answer to that is that it's yet to happen in other private security forces operating in Iraq (read: mercenaries), and those forces are filled with people who are driven (at least in part) by money. So, one supposes that FPA-members probably wouldn't be given to that kind of behavior.

Edit -- As to basically all the comments about feasibility:

As long as there don't seem to be any totally, utterly, 100% insurmountable obstacles, it's worth trying, right? I mean, if you believe in it, and want so badly to succeed, and if failing doesn't really hold that many consequences for you, well, why not try?

I really meant more for this discussion to go into the moral/ethical grounds of having such a force in the world. I mean, it seems acceptable to me, but then again, I get carried away from time to time, and I've justified lots of things to myself in the past that I now recognize as unjustifiable (thanks in large part to debate with other people of opposing viewpoints). So, you know, I'd like the debate to go more in that direction. Sorry for posting the 11-page (in Word) monster earlier, but that's got basically all my ethical reasoning in it.

[Dragonsbane]

The more I read about this, the more I have the exact same thought.

"This looks great on paper, and would probably be an okay book, but at the end of the it's just a naive science fiction dream concocted with the sole idea that shooting solves everything."

Sadly true. The whole concept of a cause-motivated unit of well-financed soldiers reeks of potential vigilante justice and eventual despotism. Money has to come from SOMEWHERE, and donations simply won't cut it for this, nor do the oppressed always have sufficient funds to hire this upgraded A-Team. If they fight for money, eventually they'll be bought out and used as an unofficial police force. If they fight for a cause...well, the Crusades and the Mujhadeen didn't exactly work out to the benefit of mankind, did they?

Huh. Well, I honestly hadn't thought of that one. I guess my only answer to that is that it's yet to happen in other private security forces operating in Iraq (read: mercenaries)

WRONG!

[Tydeus]

Money has to come from SOMEWHERE, and donations simply won't cut it for this, nor do the oppressed always have sufficient funds to hire this upgraded A-Team.

Well, again, non-profit. I mean, considering that the soldiers are going to be basically living with the FPA, overseas, then that means wages don't have to be very high. Say, $5,000 a year or so. After all, no need to buy food, utilities, furniture, cars, no need to pay insurance, rent, loans, or anything else. Members with families they need to support or other costs would simply apply for additional funds. Others could opt for lower wages, if they don't need the money. Again, keeping the force small reduces costs, and, really, much of the cost is at start-up, and can be controlled by limiting the hiring of new soldiers.

Donations really could cover it. I mean, look at other charitable organizations around the world! They don't require as much money to pay/supply individual workers, but they have far, far more people, and far, far more infrastucture to maintain and expand.

And, if they don't, well, you know, it goes under, unfortunately.

And the oppressed who would be benefiting from the FPA's actions wouldn't actually be spending their own money. Have you missed the numerous, recurring references to the non-profit nature of this organization? The FPA would not be fighting for money, but for a cause, and of course, it would have money, because you can't just get arms, armor, food, medicine, vehicles, etc, without money.

If they fight for money, eventually they'll be bought out and used as an unofficial police force.

Has the Red Cross been bought out? Habitat for Humanity? Doctors without Borders? The Red Crescent? It would be a private, non-profit corporation. No one's gonna be buying stock in it. You can't just "buy out" an organization that's privately run. And, as long as I'm in charge, or anyone I would ever trust to come anywhere near running the FPA, it wouldn't get bought out. It would close up shop first. We're talking about a group of people who aren't motivated by material goods -- the very structure of the organization would put off anyone who was in it for the money. It's not meant to be a comfortable, profitable way of life. Meaningful, satisfying, important -- yes. Comfortable -- no.

The whole concept of a cause-motivated unit of well-financed soldiers reeks of potential vigilante justice and eventual despotism.

I don't think that pursuing military action in Darfur, or similar conflicts, would really be considered "vigilante." I mean, it'd basically just be the muscle behind the general will of basically all nations. It's private and unofficial merely because that way the FPA could act more quickly, instead of waiting 3+ years before even sending an angry letter to people comitting genocide.

And, "eventual despotism," seriously? A force of 10,000-25,000 people ruling a nation? That seems, ah, impractical. A vigilante force going about conquering nations, unopposed by the world? That seems, ah, implausible. It just doesn't make sense. Why would the FPA think that they could remake a nation, by themselves? 25,000 people is simply not enough to occupy. Even Rumsfeld would have realized that. The small size of the force inherently limits its capability to non-occupational activites, or, at worst, a failed attempt to overthrow a government costing most of the FPA soldiers their lives.

If they fight for a cause...well, the Crusades and the Mujhadeen didn't exactly work out to the benefit of mankind, did they?

So, anyone who fights for a cause is wrong? Is that the inference I'm supposed to make from this statement? Because that seems to be the one that's there for me to make.

It's funny, because we often consider many revolutionaries to be such noble people, but by this logic of passivity, they are really no better than the worst of the worst.

And, really, just to briefly address the Mujhadeen statement -- can you really blame them for fighting against an ivading, imperialistic power? Should they have merely acquiesced to a tyrannical, corrupt, regime that wanted to utterly remake their way of life? I guess so. After all, fighting for something you believe in is always wrong, if someone else suffers as a result.

Let's carry that to its conclusion, because while my argument recognizes gradations (some reasons for fighting are worthy, some aren't, and we as humans are fucking capable of determining the two, or else we aren't fucking worthy of the title sapien), while yours does not.

That means that anyone who fights for ideological reasons is wrong, defensively or offensively (after all, the Mujhadeen fought defensively, and you use them as an exmaple of unethical fighting). So, then, Europe and North America's resistance to Nazi Germany was totally unethical. After all, they were fighting for ideology. You know -- that ideology that opposes genocide and censorship and baseless agression. But, hey, it's still fighting for a cause. What a terrible, misguided idea, huh?

Oh, and in the Spanish civil war -- all those people who opposed Franco, they really should have just surrendered. I mean, really, opposing somone because of ideology? That's just silly.

Or, hey, the American revolutionaries. I mean, they weren't really even in that terrible of a situation. It can almost be considered a war of agression, even. They were basically as bad as the Nazis! Fighting to make the world a better place -- how naive, how unfounded! Obviously passive acceptance of everything that befalls you is the only morally sound course of action.

And, really, anytime anyone stands up for themselves, someone gets hurt. I mean, since women got all uppity for their rights, the power and job-security of men has been vastly diluted. Power at home, reduced. Power at work, reduced. Political power, reduced. Men really lost a lot from women earning their rights. They should have just stayed in the kitchen and waited for men everywhere to willingly give them their rights.

And blacks, too. Whites ended up with a lot more comptetion after blacks got to vote and hold jobs and everything else. I mean, think of all those slave-owners who lost everything in the Civil War! Hell, think of the Civil War in general! Lincoln -- what a fascist, imperialist fool. If the South wanted to secede, he should have let it, and let slavery continue unabated. I mean, after all, he was just trying to impose his ideology on someone else, like Stalin, or Hitler! I mean, Lincoln could have just let them go! What fascist bastard! Wars of agression, after all, are always unjustified. So is making other people suffer for ideology.

Hey, what about law? Or government? I mean, people suffer all the time and lose freedoms as a result of law and government. And, since all ideologies are equally invalid, since they can't be proven empirically, that means that all governments that have an ideological basis (so, all governments) are also equally invalid! So are laws, since, really, those are just ideologies, too! And I mean, if we can't ever be totally, 100% certain, we shouldn't ever assert ourselves. Yeah. That's obviously the only moral course of action. Oh, wait, but how can I know it's the only moral course of action? How can I demand that people act the way I tell them to (passively) if it's unethical for me to ask people to make sacrifices for what I believe is right? Damn! That's right -- now I remember! This is the same argument people used centuries ago to justify the tyrannical rule of kings! It makes no sense! Thank goodness I remembered that we have the ability, as sapient beings, to evalute moral positions, and determine when some are valid, and some aren't, and gradations inbetween.

You know, for everyone's love of empiricism as the only kind of thought we can base anything off of, the scientific process is inherently one of conflict. Researches, with evidence, with fact, use their own reason and sapience to draw conclusions, and courses of action. Also, they debate with other researches who drew different conclusions. In fact, both sides very forcefully assert their own correctness, perhaps publishing many papers, raising millions, and performing hundreds of experiments. They go all-out.

And, when you prove someone wrong, and they devoted their life to their thesis? You can bet that they suffer. A lot. I mean, everything they devoted their lives to just got overthrown. So, better to let all scientific theories just stop advancing, so that people can just go about reiterating the facts that we already know, without drawing conclusions, right? Otherwise, someone could get hurt.

WRONG!

LINK!

[Darth SS]

As long as there don't seem to be any totally, utterly, 100% insurmountable obstacles, it's worth trying, right? I mean, if you believe in it, and want so badly to succeed, and if failing doesn't really hold that many consequences for you, well, why not try?

Utterly 100% insurmountable obstacles?

- Impartiality is impossible.

- Funding would be nigh-impossible to work out.

- There's no good way to choose which is the "right" side

- There's more to modern conflict than shooting the "bad guys."

- You'd need mercenaries to join for "non-profit."

- If you're constantly going into the world's hotspots, you're going to lose people. You're going to lose a lot of people.

- There's no way you'd have the latest state of the art technology all the time, and I get the distinct impression that a lot of your proposed solutions are just things you read in a magazine and didn't think all the way through.

I mean, if you believe in it, and want so badly to succeed, and if failing doesn't really hold that many consequences for you, well, why not try?

You also realize that your logic is the same logic as that of a suicide bomber who hops onto the front of a Canadian Army Jeep and kills the soldiers inside. You realize that, don't you?

[adamark]

For everyone saying that it can't be done... I mentioned the Abraham Lincoln Brigade which was composed of Americans who fought in the Spanish Civil War. Not only can it be done, it HAS been done. The precadent has been set, so you can stop arguing about whether it's possible or not...

An organization like this would be useless in the middle of a kleptocratic industrial war. However, this sort of movement would be VERY useful in low-tech conflicts like the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. That was a case where people committed a lot of violence using machetes and knives. It would have been very easy to bring a small group of unprofessional soldiers armed only with carbine rifles to escort survivors out of the country and keep the peace.

[Darth SS]

Yes we can.

The Abraham Lincoln brigade is from a completely different era. It was an an era that was much more defined, and that had to fully realize the evils of man. Besides, even then there was a defined allegiance and they were given a direction. They weren't an entity that sat there and had to decide what was right.


Also, this kind of group would have been useless in Rwanda.

For starters, there was no peace to keep. Next, it was nigh impossible to evacuate anyone. Third, the UN tried to do what you just described, which was essentially peacekeeping. They tried and failed miserably. The fact that many people simply don't get is this;

You have ten guys with guns. Opposing them is about a thousands guys with machetes who want you dead. They will encircle you, cut you off, close in, and then hack you to pieces. They'll run away only to come back, they'll hide from you and sneak up, they'll use their dead comrades as shields. There's no good way to deal with that, short of massive armed invasion.

[42PETUNIAS]

Third, the UN tried to do what you just described, which was essentially peacekeeping. They tried and failed miserably.

I may be wrong, but i don't think the U.N. was even allowed to draw weapons, comparing a group that's completly tied down by the entire world with tydeus's group, whose only point is to avoid those ties that would hinder any action to help people isn't a very compelling arguement. Also, the U.N. focused on getting people uninvolved in the conflict out, not in helping the Tutsis leave. But the fact that there are far too many of them is a valid point. This would work much better in Darfur, where you need to defend a village against people trying to attack you, in Rwanda, you'd have to fight the populace, something that would be nigh impossible, unless the group would be willing to kill enormous amounts of people, and that is definitly unhelpful to any cause.

[Darth SS]

Well, it depends who you ask.

If you ask Romeo Dallaire, he says they weren't allowed to shoot ever.

If you ask Kofi Annan and other UN officials, "The ammount of military power was expanded to match the scale of conflict."

[Loki, The Fallen]

I keep thinking it over... thinking theres gotta be something wrong with that idea... but I find it hard not to like it! Of course, we shouldn't kid ourselves. Don't hide behind cute labels, what were talking about is a western terrorist group really. They have no ties, they fight for what they believe is right, they answer to noone but themselves. Highly trained, western terrorists. As much as I think we need something to fight against the over-PC-ification (or other less nice words. Think 'sounds like') of the world, the lack of people with lofty ideals fighting for whats right, this really doesn't sound like much more then that, and I'm not sure we'd like to take the chance of having another group like that running around.

Oh, and Demetrius, I'd so join Mithril if I they would let me contribute, say, as a pilot after much more training, but only if they actually had fricken Arm-Slaves with fricken Lambda Drivers on every fricken one. That would be pretty badass. And of course, that would have to be after the UN got fixed, but once that happened, how much of a need for Mithril would there be? Actually, strike that, we could always use giant fricken robots with huge fricken guns shootin' down badguys! :D
Sure I'm dreaming, but its those dreams that keep us from being completely bored by the monotony of life.

But back to the discussion. It sounds all well and good, but I see some problems policing it within, and stopping it from becoming corrupt, as would anyone who works as a merc. If there was a very strict code, with very strict consiquensces, it could happen.

Although you made some pretty good points with it having a strong command structure, but what happens if a part of this group goes rogue? Decides you arn't staying true enough to the code? Or, another possibility, gets more money from the other side to, say, look the other way a bit, say "they got away"?

Ah, I'm throwin a bunch of what ifs out there, but the moderately evil idealistic vigilantie-justice side of me :yarr: is rooting for you, and hopes you can stop that genocide! But the side of me who overthinks this stuff, who tends to be a bit cautious, hopes the group disbands after acomplishing that mission. :brow: Any case, good luck!

[Tydeus]

Utterly 100% insurmountable obstacles?

- Impartiality is impossible.
Who said it was necessary? Why would I need to be impartial when dealing with the kind of people who gang-rape thirteen-year-old girls, and slaughter infants and the elderly in their homes, only because their skin is one shade darker, and they have different facial features? These peoples deserve impartiality? Why? Because we're both fighting for "moral" causes? Oh, wait, but my cause has motherfucking reason and humanity and compassion and logic and evidence and everything that makes an argument more valid than its opponent! My cause is better! Can you honestly tell me I'm no more justified to fight to defend the innocent and save lives and broker peace than someone who's comitting genocide? Can you really say that?

"- Funding would be nigh-impossible to work out."

If I have to, I will raise it myself. I will fucking go alone, if I have to. Every day, I become more convinced that this is the right thing to do, and what I am meant to do (and my convincing has come in no small part from the fact that the argument most frequently used against me here (everyone I've talked to outside this forum has thought it's a good idea, from XBL to parents to friends to teachers) is absurd and a logical paradox and promotes everything I believe is wrong with the world. If that's my opposition? So be it). I cannot live a normal life, and be happy. Do you understand this? I am pretty fucking weird, OK?

"- There's no good way to choose which is the 'right' side"

WHAT? Seriously? Fucking seriously? Fighting to stop genocide cannot be declared better than comitting it? Are you fucking serious? How can you possibly think that? It defies all logic and reason and evidence!

I've thrice demolished this argument, but let me do it again -- I guess I have to. OK, so, you believe that all ideologies are equally invalid to be forced on people, because they can't ever be proved one way or another. But, the notion that all ideologies are equally invalid to be forced on people is, itself, an ideology, and thus declares itsef invalid. So, you really can't ask anyone to follow it. Hell, you really can't ask yourself to follow it, because undoubtably there is a part of you (remember I don't believe in the unified self) that doesn't agree with that ideology, and wants to act according to other ideologies. Thus, forcing yourself to abide by the notion that all ideologies are equally invalid to force on people is, in fact, unethical, and you should stop. The argument nullifies itself, declares itself wrong! It is a paradox! Generally, arguments that are paradoxes are considered, uh, wrong.

Have I mentioned also that nothing can really be proven? Have I mentioned that laws are ideologies that cost people their lives (and life in prison is no better than death -- especially in America's horrific prison system)? Have I mentioned government forces people to do things all the time? Have I mentioned that everyone has competing impulses, so even when you're obeying "of your own free will" you're really stifling a different will, oppressing it? Have I mentioned these things?

Have I mentioned that we have reason? And logic? Have I mentioned that our ability to evaluate and decide good or bad is precisely what makes us human? For fuck's sake, even the guys who wrote Genesis knew that! Fucking what, like, 5,000+ years ago? Kind of been considered the basic tenet of humanity ever since? Heard that before?

Oh, hey, what about actions? I mean, why do anything? I mean, who's to say if living is good? Why live? There's no empiricial reason to live. In fact, there is no empirical reason to do anything! That would be antithetical to the idea of empiricism! It's not meant to suggest should or shouldn'ts, only what is. So, considering that, and considering that your act of living might hurt, hell might even kill someone else (maybe you get in a car crash? Pay taxes that are used to buy guns to kill people? Support industries in which a factory worker is killed or injured? There are so many indirect and direct links -- best to just sit in a corner and starve. It's the only morally correct solution), you should probably just stop. I mean, since you don't have any reason to do anything, since, apparently, no ideology, no idea is justifiable as an action, because maybe someone somewhere will get hurt, then I guess you'd better just quietly starve. Oh, but, wait! That might hurt your relatives! Damn! Looks like there's no way to exist in this world without hurting someone or something....Oh, wait, that's because that's true! The very nature of our psychotic little universe, with entropy, with killing necessary to living, utterly ruins our impartial support of all things good. Damn, I forgot, but nothing's good or bad. Right. Oops.

Sorry to be so tremendously sarcastic, but dear sweet shit, dude! This argument is absurd! It's basically the same argument people used to justify the tyranny of kings in the middle ages! Don't you belive in standing up for yourself? Standing up for others, who can't stand up for themselves? Doesn't that seem like a good idea?

"- There's more to modern conflict than shooting the "bad guys.""

Yeah. I knew that. What does that have to do with the FPA? Brokering peace would kind of be a big mission for the FPA. Oh, and defending other humanitarian workers, the FPA could do that, too. I keep forgetting to mention that. Anyway, uh, what was the point here? Just to be patronizing? Or was that when you called my idea a "naive sci-fi dream concocted with the idea that shooting solves everything"? Since no mod jumped all over that total flamage, let me just say I didn't appreciate it at all. I don't like being insulted and demeaned becuase you feel morally superior. Hah! Isn't irony great, kids?

"- You'd need mercenaries to join for 'non-profit.' -"

Yeah. So? Last time I checked, US soldiers don't get paid a whole lot. And, ah, last time I checked, I'd spoken with plenty of people, ex-military or just people with moral conviction and a sense of ethical duty, who are exactly the kind of people who'd be perfect for the FPA, and think it's a great idea. Are you really telling me that out of 6 billion+ people, I couldn't find 25,000 to fight for the justice of the defenseless, the oppressed, the massacred? What a sad world that would be. I may not be the most optomistic person in the world, but Christ, Darth, I'm not that gloomy.

"- If you're constantly going into the world's hotspots, you're going to lose people. You're going to lose a lot of people. -"

Really? No way! Oh, wait, was this just the patronizing again? Sorry, I forgot. No, no, it's cool. Go ahead and not-so-subtly insult my intelligence by shouting facts at me which not only are (a) obvious, but also (b) have been said already, and (c) I fucking acknlowedged. Really, I don't mind.

"- There's no way you'd have the latest state of the art technology all the time, and I get the distinct impression that a lot of your proposed solutions are just things you read in a magazine and didn't think all the way through. -"

Well, actually I don't think I read any of it in a magazine, but, whatever. You know, go ahead and treat me like an ignorant and impulsive child/redneck/hawk/Popular Science subscriber (which, btw, I don't subscribe to. Scientific American and the New Yorker for me, thanks. And Sci-Am never really has anything about weapons, really. Actually, I can't even remember the last time they mentioned that. They're usually too busy having actual researchers come write for them about real research.). That wouldn't be, like, totally rude or anything.

Have I mentioned that basically every of my nerdgasm-inducing ideas are actually practical/in place already? It's not that hard to pump someone full of HGH to turn them into a muscle-bound GoW character, or to slap on some Liquid Metal plating. We've got that already, thanks. But you know, I appreciate the constant effort to patronize me.

"You also realize that your logic is the same logic as that of a suicide bomber who hops onto the front of a Canadian Army Jeep and kills the soldiers inside. You realize that, don't you?"

Uh, no. No it isn't. False. Wrong. Incorrect.

Really?

You really can't see the differences between trying to stop genocide, and killing people because they have a different religion? Or because they support people with a different religion? You really can't fucking see the difference? Trying to broker peace by showing people that they cant' just shit over human rights willy-nilly (by use of force) is the same to you as killing because someone worships the same god as you, but in the wrong way? That's fucking absurd, right there, and I don't think anyone can argue with that. Oh, and, unlike you, Darth, when I say something negative about someone's argument, I don't just say it. I explain why it's true. I don't just say things like "naive sci-fi dream concocted with the idea that shooting solves everything" without fucking trying to justify that statement. OK? Go ahead and say negative things -- really, it's fine. That's part of debate. Call my argument absurd, ignorant, foolish, impulsive, amoral, deranged, whatever. But then explain why it is those things. That's the difference between debate and flaming.

Oh, and, logic, Darth, is precisely the fucking thing that allows us to differentiate between defending the fucking innocent and slaughtering people because their religion has a guy who wears a fancy hat, and yours doesn't. So don't pull the fucking "logic" card on me, Darth. You abandoned that privilege when you said no one can use logic to evaluate morality, ideology, humanity. You abandoned logic when you said that all ideologies, including your own, are invalid. You abandoned logic when you said that no ideology can be forced on other people. So, you don't get to fucking call logic on me, Darth. You're the one who said we aren't allowed to use it.

You know what's funny as shit? You say that all ideologies are invalid, that, essentially, no one can really claim the moral high ground, no one can ride their high horse (because that is the extension of your absolutist, indistinctive, unspecific argument, which makes no allowances, unlike mine, which does, and thus can't be carried to absurd extremes like yours -- that by the way, is why we use logic in the first place), but you've been nothing but insulting and patronizing all thread long, essentially, doing nothing but riding your high horse, trumpeting your moral superiority (which, again, is a concept you don't believe in). So, my question is, are you going to make up your mind?

[Darth SS]

- Impartiality is important. If you don't have it you start out as a vigilante group, and will eventually become nothing more than another army for a government. Maybe it's because they offer a lot of funding. Maybe it's because you've been on the same side so many times you don't question it. Maybe it's because they've saved your people and you've got a debt. Since you have no way to create a truly autonomous group, it is doomed to failed.



- The mere fact that you say you'll fund it yourself drives home how naive you are about this. You want to fund a small army. You need to give these guys enough money to pay for their mortage, to pay for their kids' braces, to pay for pizza, to pay for anything really. You also need to pay more than their own armed forces. I mean, why join this group when you can just join the army for more money? You have to pay this to everyone every single month, at least. But then, you need to buy all this high tech equipment you want. You need to pay for their training. For training facilities. You need to pay for ammunition, most of which would be expended in training. You need to maintain air power to get to and from countries. You need to pay for maintenance of that air power, maintenance of your facilities, and maintenance of your combat gear. For multiple years.

Here's numbers.

The Canadian Armed Forces employ about 92 000 personnel that accomplish all the jobs above. Less than a hundred thousand. The annual expenditure for this?

13.9 billion dollars Canadian. About 11.8 billion dollars American.

I'll assume you want maybe 900 people, total. I'll be generous and not include the cost of state of the art equipment, or the need to pay more than the normal army. So, that's about 1/100 of the Canadian Army.

That's still 139 million dollars.

A year.


Now, I'll admit. I have been slightly patronizing. However, my comment comparing you to the terrorist stands.

You have decided that your side is right and you have the moral authority to enforce it.


Where does that line end? You kill all the genocidaires. You kill the people who organized it. You kill the people who encouraged the organizing. You kill the people who gave them reason to organize it.

Where does it stop?

At what point do you say, "Oh wait. I'm the bad guy."



You should also note I'm not the one who said all ideologies are invalid.

You're the one who read my post, went apeshit, and decided that I must have meant that. Just by doing that, you're being illogical.

[Tydeus]

- Impartiality is important. If you don't have it you start out as a vigilante group, and will eventually become nothing more than another army for a government. Maybe it's because they offer a lot of funding. Maybe it's because you've been on the same side so many times you don't question it. Maybe it's because they've saved your people and you've got a debt. Since you have no way to create a truly autonomous group, it is doomed to failed.

I didn't realize what you meant by "impartiality." You really could have been more specific earlier on, Darth. But, as to national impartiality, I've already explained my stance on how to maintain it.

- The mere fact that you say you'll fund it yourself drives home how naive you are about this. You want to fund a small army.

Reply, taken from one of my previous posts: "Mainly, because the FPA would start out small. I really should have specified this -- I mean, at the beginning, as few as two dozen soldiers. Yeah, you aren't gonna stop genocide with that few soldiers, I know. However, you can protect some civilians, and you can garner a whole hell of a lot of free media attention, which you can use to funnel donations into your bank account, and people into your uniforms. "

You need to give these guys enough money to pay for their mortage, to pay for their kids' braces, to pay for pizza, to pay for anything really. You also need to pay more than their own armed forces. I mean, why join this group when you can just join the army for more money? You have to pay this to everyone every single month, at least.

Reply, taken from three of my earlier posts: "(1)If you volunteer for the FPA, you've forgone those individualistic goals that our modern society trumpets as the only goals worth having. You've forgone that nice house in the cul-de-sac (or the gated community, or the apartment in SoHo, whatever your inclination is), the nice car to go with it, and the nice stuff to sit incide. You've even forgone the nice family to live in it with you. Of course, once you're out, you can do all that, but while you're in it? You are so much more resiliant, independant, and free. Reject society, and what can people who endorse it possibly do to punish you?

(2)Furthermore, when you sign up for a sixteen-year tour (well, between 10 and 20. I chose 16 because it was a standard Roman tour of duty), or a lifetime tour (16 is minimum), you probably don't have a family of your own (as in wife/husband and kids) at home, and if you do, you're such an irresponsible jackass that you won't by the time you get home.

(3)Well, again, non-profit. I mean, considering that the soldiers are going to be basically living with the FPA, overseas, then that means wages don't have to be very high. Say, $5,000 a year or so. After all, no need to buy food, utilities, furniture, cars, no need to pay insurance, rent, loans, or anything else. Members with families they need to support or other costs would simply apply for additional funds. Others could opt for lower wages, if they don't need the money. Again, keeping the force small reduces costs, and, really, much of the cost is at start-up, and can be controlled by limiting the hiring of new soldiers.

Donations really could cover it. I mean, look at other charitable organizations around the world! They don't require as much money to pay/supply individual workers, but they have far, far more people, and far, far more infrastucture to maintain and expand."

But then, you need to buy all this high tech equipment you want. You need to pay for their training. For training facilities. You need to pay for ammunition, most of which would be expended in training. You need to maintain air power to get to and from countries. You need to pay for maintenance of that air power, maintenance of your facilities, and maintenance of your combat gear. For multiple years.

I refer to the first reply I made in this post (the one mentioning the initial size of the force).

Here's numbers.

The Canadian Armed Forces employ about 92 000 personnel that accomplish all the jobs above. Less than a hundred thousand. The annual expenditure for this?

13.9 billion dollars Canadian. About 11.8 billion dollars American.

I'll assume you want maybe 900 people, total. I'll be generous and not include the cost of state of the art equipment, or the need to pay more than the normal army. So, that's about 1/100 of the Canadian Army.

That's still 139 million dollars.

A year.

"need to pay more than the normal army" -- refer above to the quote related to pay.

Further, maintainence is a bitch, but, no air-power would be purchased. Fighters really don't make a lot of sense, generally. Most anything a plane can do, a missle can do cheaper, with less fuel, no risk of pilot death or error, and a bigger payload. So, no planes. Or tanks, probably, and minimal other machinery. No, say, carriers, destroyers, fighters, helicopters, tanks, or whatever else. Armored transport vehicles, like the Strykers, sure, and Humvees of course. And, probably some kind of mobile air-defense platform, but everything to a minimum, and not until the FPA really got cookin', basically.

In many instances, bases could be chosen in neighboring countries (like in Chad, where the Chadian government is terrified that they'll be overthrown by the janjaweed as the Arab militias move into their country), to minimize overhead. Local nations who would benefit from the FPA's actions, who are not involved could be comissioned for the kind of heavy-machinery stuff, at least much of the time (again, like in Chad's case).

Since the FPA's soldiers would be pretty much overseas, all the time, transport to and from home-countries wouldn't really be an issue. Basically, really, really minimal overhead. And, for the most part, hulking plates of metal (what will undoubtably serve as much of the cost of equipping the FPA soldiers, as the stuff would be some advanced, expensive alloy (like Liquid Metal) and it may or may not need to be individually fitted) doesn't need a lot of maintainence. Yes, other stuff does, but for the most part, we could keep the level of technical sophistication low, at first anyway. Basically, guns, armor, cameras (the helmets, which would ideally encase the entire head, would feature external cameras and mics to pipe in video and audio. Should the cameras fail, there'd have to be a visor, and a shutter which could be raised or lowered, if the cameras failed), and cooling (it'd get hot in all that armor). For the most part, the soldiers could probably be trained to fix their own malfunctions (I mean, really, that makes the best tactical sense as well).

Consider also that the FPA would have far less in the way of bureaucracy, and far fewer permanent bases (if any) to maintain, and any bases would be far smaller, and located in countries with very favorable exchange rates (read: most things tend to be dirt cheap in Africa). Further, unlike national militaries, the FPA wouldn't be doing things like funding research, or doing all kind of National Guard-type stuff.

So, no, not 139 million a year. And, anyway, there are other humanitarian organizations with at least those operating costs. I mean, look at the Red Cross. The International Red Cross Comittee's 2005 budget was over $800 million US dollars, according to Wikiality.

So, even if costs were to be that high -- which, ah, they won't be, because simply taking a fraction of a national military's annual expenditures in no way is representative of the FPA's cost, given their dramatically different focuses and organization -- it'd still be more than feasible, just by donation.

Now, I'll admit. I have been slightly patronizing. However, my comment comparing you to the terrorist stands.

That was. An apology? Huh?

You have decided that your side is right and you have the moral authority to enforce it.

Yes, in this way, I am similar to a terrorist. So is every great leader that we consider in all of human history. Hell, the fact that a worldview like yours even exists (you know, the one that's a logical paradox, delcares itself invalid by its own nature, and rejects basically every Great Person of history as a murderous fiend) is thanks to some people fighting for freedom, for peace, for stability, for rights! Otherwise you'd still be living in your own shit in a field for some medieval lord. But, wait, instead, society progressed, thanks in no small part to people making a stand for fucking morality at the expense of others.

Let me just ask you: would it be ethical for anyone to step into Darfur? Because, after all, even if the UN went in with a (non-castrated) military, it'd still be because they thought they were morally correct. And don't pull that "well, then it's the whole world thinking it's OK" crap, becuase that's a false appeal to authority. Everyone can be wrong. Everyone has been wrong before. So, really, by your logic, ever standing up for anything is wrong. What a cheery world it would be if we all followed that "logic."


Where does that line end? You kill all the genocidaires. You kill the people who organized it. You kill the people who encouraged the organizing. You kill the people who gave them reason to organize it.

Where does it stop?

Uh, as soon as possible. Last time I checked, there were people who fought for a moral cause who didn't try to kill everyone in the entire world (that's what you're driving at, right? Because that's exactly what it seems like). In fact, last time I checked, there were people who fought for a moral cause who stopped fighting when that cause was achieved, or it failed. Like, in Spain, or in WWII, or in the American Civil War, or in the French and American revolutions, or in the Civil Rights movement (hey, you said it's unethical to enforce morality on others, and that means the morals of equality and freedom as well, and not necessarily through violence, either), or in all the colonies' bids for freedom, in Algeria, in Vietnam, the Reds in Russia (sure, it turned out poorly, but would you classify all the poor, abused, downtrodden peasants as terrorists? I guess so! What monsters, eh?), women everywhere, anyone who every fought off an invading army ever, and so on. This is absurd. Please stop simply stating this argument over and over. Try to refute my points, hell, even acknowledge that I made them. Just stop saying the same thing over and over without providing any response to anything I said. That doesn't move the debate forward at all.

At what point do you say, "Oh wait. I'm the bad guy."
Ideally, never, because we didn't do anything wrong. Ideally, we would stop before ever getting to that point. The goal here is to end the conflict. That means not allowing agression to happen, and then forcing both sides to broker for peace, since all their military attempts to resolve the conflict are failing anyway (thanks to the FPA shutting them down).

See, here's the crazy thing -- some ideologies are better than others. *GASP!* Yes, I know, shocking. Nazis, are, in fact, not justified to slaughter Jews, while Darfurians are in fact justified to defend themselves. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but there's this whole "reason" thing, that lets us differentiate between the two. It sounds nutty, I know, but it's true.

You should also note I'm not the one who said all ideologies are invalid.

Yes, yes you are. "You have decided that your side is right and you have the moral authority to enforce it."

No, technically, you did not literally add at the end "and this is wrong," but you did use that statement to compare me to an Islamic fanatic/terrorist, so, I'm guessing you were saying that it's a bad thing. Just a guess, though.

You're the one who read my post, went apeshit, and decided that I must have meant that. Just by doing that, you're being illogical.

Well, when your post is tremendously inspecific, and you say things like "There's no good way to choose which is the "right" side," and then pretty much flat-out say that it's not OK to enforce your moral philosophies, then I think I'm OK to infer that you consider all ideologies invalid to force on others, which was actually the assertion I made.

[Fifthfiend]

You're the one who read my post, went apeshit, and decided that I must have meant that.

You are the one trying pretty hard to antagonize him into going apeshit.

Stop that, please.

Also, Tydeus - stop going apeshit.

[Tydeus]

You are the one trying pretty hard to antagonize him into going apeshit.

Stop that, please.

Also, Tydeus - stop going apeshit.

Sorry, fifth.

You have any input on this topic? I'd really love to hear it. I always enjoy debating with you, fifth, mainly because we both agree on things like how logic can be used to determine the relative value of moral philosophies.

[adamark]

Yes we can.

Also, this kind of group would have been useless in Rwanda.

For starters, there was no peace to keep. Next, it was nigh impossible to evacuate anyone. Third, the UN tried to do what you just described, which was essentially peacekeeping. They tried and failed miserably. The fact that many people simply don't get is this;

You have ten guys with guns. Opposing them is about a thousands guys with machetes who want you dead. They will encircle you, cut you off, close in, and then hack you to pieces. They'll run away only to come back, they'll hide from you and sneak up, they'll use their dead comrades as shields. There's no good way to deal with that, short of massive armed invasion.

Darth SS, you are making a very unrealistic and dare I say a bigotted comparison between Rwandans and evil, orc zombies. As if they acted like hordes of creatures. No. They are men, afraid of death like any man is. Also, the genocide didn't occur by hordes of thousands like a feeding frenzy. It was committed man by man, village by village. A group of 10 mercenaries with guns would be the PERFECT rescue operation. They couldn't stop the whole genocide, but they could save perhaps one village at a time. Your belief that the only way to deal with it is "massive armed invasion" is... dead wrong. Re-evaluate your stance.

[Fifthfiend]

You have any input on this topic? I'd really love to hear it. I always enjoy debating with you, fifth, mainly because we both agree on things like how logic can be used to determine the relative value of moral philosophies.

My input is don't be a kissass, nobody likes that.

My actual input is I dunno, it does seem pretty silly as any kind of concrete real-world plan. Though it does make for an interesting hypothetical. Most of what I'd say here's already been said one way or the other.

[Tydeus]

My input is don't be a kissass, nobody likes that.

Well, then fuck you, buddy! Too much?

Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to be a kissass. For true. Mostly just trying to insert a jab at Darth's whole anti-ideological ideology. Well, that and desperately trying to get someone to post a nice big book of their own for me to pick through in my down-time. But, in general, I do try to avoid kissassery, as well as brownnoserocity.

My actual input is I dunno, it does seem pretty silly as any kind of concrete real-world plan. Though it does make for an interesting hypothetical. Most of what I'd say here's already been said one way or the other.

So, what, feasibility, then?

*Sigh* Hardly anyone seems to want to talk about the actual ideology behind it. Well, except Darth. I kind of expected a little more desire to debate the whole premise of the thing, refine it, provide suggestions, etc.

Now, to address any posts I missed yet.

Highly trained, western terrorists. As much as I think we need something to fight against the over-PC-ification (or other less nice words. Think 'sounds like') of the world, the lack of people with lofty ideals fighting for whats right, this really doesn't sound like much more then that, and I'm not sure we'd like to take the chance of having another group like that running around.

Refer to: All my posts relating to Darth SS. I think I pretty much covered how the FPA would be tremendously better than a terrorist organization, and considering them on equal moral footing is, ah, absurd.

But back to the discussion. It sounds all well and good, but I see some problems policing it within, and stopping it from becoming corrupt, as would anyone who works as a merc. If there was a very strict code, with very strict consiquensces, it could happen.

As to strict policing -- agreed. 100% with you. Strict codes of conduct, with strict punishments. You torture someone? Bam. See you fucking later, pal. Same goes for pretty much any other kind of abuse, and unecessary killings. The nice thing about a small force is that everyone should be instilled with the same sense of duty, and it'd be difficult for anyone to hide any wrongdoing.

Although you made some pretty good points with it having a strong command structure, but what happens if a part of this group goes rogue? Decides you arn't staying true enough to the code? Or, another possibility, gets more money from the other side to, say, look the other way a bit, say "they got away"?

Well, as to the "more money from the other side" bit -- again, the people who sign up for the FPA are non-profit, not-in-it-for-the-money-types. If they need more money for some reason (like medical bills for family, etc), they would just need to apply.

As to the "going rogue" bit, all I can say is that it seems doubtful. I mean, I personally, as long as I were in charge, I wouldn't let it escalate to that point. I'd make concessions first, and as would anyone who'd have been the kind of person I'd founded the FPA with. Or I'd leave peacefully. But, yeah, that's definitely a bigger risk in such a morally-bound organization. Of course, due to the military-style command/power structure, opposition would come only from other leaders, really, and it would be fairly easy to resolve those issues, considering that the problem'd only be between a few people, so concessions would be easy to make, or it would alternatively be easy to remove a troublemaker. Also, since it's all volunteer, and generally the cause would be well-known before hand, it seems that ideological unity would be highly probably.

If worst came to worst, probably the group would just splinter into two groups with slightly different missions. Well, no, that's not really the worst-case scenario. Worst would be the two sides end up in conflict, because one views the other as a threat to peace and stability. But, hey, if some part of the FPA went rogue in a destructive manner (for isntance, tried to take power somewhere) the rest of the FPA would have to try to stop them, because it's their fault (and would be mine). Still, I guess my best answer is that it seems very unlikely, and seems an acceptable risk.

Ah, I'm throwin a bunch of what ifs out there, but the moderately evil idealistic vigilantie-justice side of me is rooting for you, and hopes you can stop that genocide! But the side of me who overthinks this stuff, who tends to be a bit cautious, hopes the group disbands after acomplishing that mission.

Well, there'd be plenty of other atrocities to keep the FPA busy for centuries to come, most likely. The nice thing is that the FPA could easily and quickly prove itself to the world -- it's an organization that produces tangible results than most people can really easily wrap their brains around. So, if it went well the first time, I'd see no reason to stop.

[Demetrius]

The people that the 'FPA' would attract are exactly the people you don't want to have in the fight you are describing. These people would be attracted by a cause and the chance to create peace, etc. They would have no reason to stick with you other than their belief in their cause. The first time they are forced to shoot a child with explosives strapped to them or deal with killing people who are the apparent victims in the wars they are wandering into your forces will fall apart.

The people you would be fighting against are motivated by fear, fear for themselves fear, for their loved ones, fear of the force they know is going to be coming for them. But they will fight because of their fear, their fear of you and their fear of the tyrants who force them into fighting will turn into anger against the FPA, the ones who are making their leaders force them into fighting and killing and fearing.

Most of these genocides are a result of localized conflict/civil wars, basic clashes where neither side is without innocent people dragged into it, in fact most of the people doing the dying are people who feel they have no choice, the try evil lies in the leaders and the cicumstances that set the conflict up.

Take for instance a normal college student who will go to Canada or Mexico to avoid a draft, but will sign up for your FPA; how will they do in sticking to a greater good when they have to kill other people who are fighting for a cause they believe in and will lay their lives down for?

The whole point of the mercenary part that would make this part work is that mercenaries have no loyalties other than the contract they hold. They are cold blooded and will do a job for their pay, that is the kind of impartiality needed for this to have any chance of working. The morality of the choices would have to lie with the leadership, the ones weilding the weapon they have created.

On a side note the US and the UN would take steps to eliminate you as domestic terrorists especially if your interests conflicted with the US's or if you became involved in civil wars.

(EDIT) Keep it goin' Tydeus, I work all night long without too much to do, so we can go at this all night, unless you wanna start a new thread to argue on :P

Also I think the best way to accomplish this is a Tom Clancy-esque Rainbow Six kind of organization. I just can't trust groups of individuals acting on ideals, it gets my 'mob sense' going and makes me nervous.

[Krylo]

Well if you want to discuss ideology, I'm actually more or less behind it. I mean, there's a lot of slippery slope stuff involved with giving people guns and free reign, and I honestly don't know if I trust anyone that much. However, from the purely hypothetical event that they do what you're saying they will, I have only one point of contention, and its a minor one at that.

When you say you'll not overthrow despots, might I point out that without overthrowing any despot any intervention will fail to actually accomplish anything. I mean if you go in and stop one village from being genocidized, or two, or three, or whatever, but you leave the same people who enforced the genocide in the first place in control, well what do you think will happen? More than likely they're going to send a larger force to attempt to kill the mercenaries or rebels (what they think depends upon how vocal you are and how famous), as well as continue with the genocide. If you stick around you'll face escalating forces until you're either taking down the despot, retreating, or dying. If you leave the village, well then anyone who didn't leave with you WOULD be killed. And no, people aren't always willing to leave, even when they know they'll be killed if they don't. People are stupid like that.

[Tydeus]

The people that the 'FPA' would attract are xactly the people you don't want to have in the fight you are describing. These people would be attracted by a cause and the chance to create peace, etc. They would have no reason to stick with you other than their belief in their cause. The first time they are forced to shoot a child with explosives strapped to them or deal with killing people who are the apparent victims in the wars they are wandering into your forces will fall apart.

Hmmm...Yes, I've wondered about this myself. I suppose that's what psychological profiling is for? Making sure that the people involved are willing to kill? I think primarily the FPA would try to draw recruits from vets. Especially Special Ops types, who generally tend to be (a) very well trained (b) motivated to advance certain moral causes, even at high costs (c) willing to forgo normal life, and (d) very much willing to kill. Generally, it's these same kind of guys who end up doing merc work, but I think this would appeal to their moral sensibilities, and their military sensibilities in a way that basically no other organization does.

The people you would be fighting against are motivated by fear, fear for themselves fear, for their loved ones, fear of the force they know is going to be coming for them. But they will fight because of their fear, their fear of you and their fear of the tyrants who force them into fighting will turn into anger against the FPA, the ones who are making their leaders force them into fighting and killing and fearing.

I'm a little confused as to this part. Did you contstrue the FPA as an offensive organization? I mean, the FPA would go on offensive missions, at times, but generally just against military targest, e.g. air-force bases, groups of militiamen, etc. The FPA would try its best to be primarily defensive.

As to innocents? Sorry, no. If you join up with people who commit genocide and other inhuman atrocities, then you are no innocent. I mean, really, that's some haineous shit to even let happen in your country, but to actually join up? That right there is a forfeiture of innocence.

Most of these genocides are a result of localized conflict/civil wars, basic clashes where neither side is without innocent people dragged into it, in fact most of the people doing the dying are people who feel they have no choice, the try evil lies in the leaders and the cicumstances that set the conflict up.

Again, same response as above. Not that the FPA wouldn't do their best to end those circumstances, and compel leaders to change their course of action.

Take for instance a normal college student who will go to Canada or Mexico to avoid a draft, but will sign up for your FPA; how will they do in sticking to a greater good when they have to kill other people who are fighting for a cause they believe in and will lay their lives down for?

Like I said -- we'd try to draw from a more professional pool of applicants, or at least perform psych evaluations on possible applicants. Of course, we'd need medics and bureaucrats and engineers anyway, so, you know, they could do that. Or fundraise, advertise, etc. Plenty of things they could do for the group other than fight on the frontlines, if they're really that dedicated.

The whole point of the mercenary part that would make this part work is that mercenaries have no loyalties other than the contract they hold. They are cold blooded and will do a job for their pay, that is the kind of impartiality needed for this to have any chance of working. The morality of the choices would have to lie with the leadership, the ones weilding the weapon they have created.

Yeah, basically that's the idea. Like any military -- a leadership that makes the decisions, and a grunt force that obeys those decisions. However, in this case, the grunts would also have that same moral motivation, making them more effective, obediant, dedicated soldiers. Additionally, the leadership would be fighting on the frontlines, but the traditional leadership structure is definitely something to keep around.

On a side note the US and the UN would take steps to eliminate you as domestic terrorists especially if your interests conflicted with the US's or if you became involved in civil wars.

Well, we'd probably be based overseas, but I think technically the FPA could work within the law. I mean, security companies are hired in Iraq that are really just mercenary. I mean, yeah, they're "security" men, but they carry body armor, grenades, and .50 cal machine guns, and they kill a lot of people. Just have some representative of an opressed/threatened group, or the group together contract the FPA as a security force, and the FPA just wouldn't charge anything. The FPA could then make some offensive excursions, and quite easily justify them as necessary to maintain the safety of an entire group -- hell, the FPA could justify brokering of peace between two sides as a necessary step to cement the security of its clients. Since these "security corporations" are legal, the FPA would similarly be legal.

Besides, once the FPA proved itself, it seems likely that people would be reluctant to disband a group that's going about doing the dirty work that is involved in putting some force behind the statement "Never Again."

(EDIT) Keep it goin' Tydeus, I work all night long without too much to do, so we can go at this all night, unless you wanna start a new thread to argue on :P sure thing, man.

Also I think the best way to accomplish this is a Tom Clancy-esque Rainbow Six kind of organization. I just can't trust groups of individuals acting on ideals, it gets my 'mob sense' going and makes me nervous.
Yeah, I understand the nervousness, but, again, the FPA would have a lot of regulation imposed on it by its structure as well as its own internal laws.

When you say you'll not overthrow despots, might I point out that without overthrowing any despot any intervention will fail to actually accomplish anything. I mean if you go in and stop one village from being genocidized, or two, or three, or whatever, but you leave the same people who enforced the genocide in the first place in control, well what do you think will happen? More than likely they're going to send a larger force to attempt to kill the mercenaries or rebels (what they think depends upon how vocal you are and how famous), as well as continue with the genocide. If you stick around you'll face escalating forces until you're either taking down the despot, retreating, or dying. If you leave the village, well then anyone who didn't leave with you WOULD be killed. And no, people aren't always willing to leave, even when they know they'll be killed if they don't. People are stupid like that.

True (the last bit about people being stupid.) Unfortunately, they'd probably have to be left behind. But, yeah, evacuation would actually be the main goal in most of these village-based missions. And, thankfully, the janjaweed don't have the kind of infrastructure to go radio in reinforcements and the like, so any support would be slow to arrive. Ideally, any civvies would be evacuated prior to the arrival of the militias.

The problem with regime change is that there has to be someone better waiting to take the despots' place, which is rarely the case, and often times the "better" person can turn out to be quite the opposite, and that kind of future-prediction relaly is very difficult to do. Otherwise, the FPA would have to occupy, and that would require an enormous force.

The best solution, to my mind, is always be attempting to broker a peace, with the threat of a total crackdown by the FPA on any military activity. Eventually, the despots will realize that every time they send soldiers out, they just get slaughtered (remember Somalia? 19 Americans dead, and 3,000 Somalis. And the Americans were (a) caught off guard, and (b) not sporting $50,000 worth of body-armor), and so they'll be forced to abandon military solutions. The FPA would force the signing of a treaty, but with the threat of FPA enforcement actually behind that treaty. Maybe both sides would prefer a fractioning of both nations, maybe they'd want a free election -- that's up to them. The FPA would just provide the peace and stability to let a more organic and permanent peace process occur.

Generally, regime-change is so difficult and can have so many unpredictable consequences it'd be best to avoid. Of course, it really depends on the situation. If the FPA saw a situation in which regime change could really happen, and there was a clearly decent group ready to step into the power vacuum, the FPA might help them achieve power. Still, it'd be avoided at all costs, and not even attempted 'til the FPA grew substantially and proven itself for some years prior.

[Dragonsbane]

Tydeus, you're consistently ignoring and dismissing a pervasive argument that has sprung up repeatedly now. Cause-motivated soldiers. Low pay. The inherent dangers of becoming essentially a Western terrorist group. Thus far, you have repeatedly misconstrued it as an assault on all subjective ideological causes when it is, in fact, a warning of the "slippery slope" you've embarked on. How many well-intentioned militia groups started out trying to fight injustice, and now merely growl about the overthrow of the government? How many idealistic young boys joined a holy corps of Muslim warriors in defense of their homeland from the Soviet invaders, and ended up the enforcers of a dictatorial theocratic regime?

Furthermore, the tone in which you put it is off. It would have been perfectly fine if, say, you had put it towards enforcing the laws set forth by the whole world based on a common consensus (ideally) of what constitutes a violation of human rights. Instead, you put this group forth to enforce your own personal philosophies and, frankly, that is too dangerous to trust.

Your idea would make a nice story, but it contains too many flaws in both idea and feasability of operation, especially since every time you talk about how you intend to accomplish the difficult bits (regime change, for instance) you assume a massive amount of money and firepower that would be simply impossible for an ideological force to obtain without government backing, especially the way you laid it out, to actually work.

[Fifthfiend]

Incidentally, on the Iraq contractors thing mentioned earlier:

U.S. contractors in Iraq allege abuses
Four men say they witnessed brutality
By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit
Updated: 4:15 p.m. ET Feb 17, 2005 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745)

There are new allegations that heavily armed private security contractors in Iraq are brutalizing Iraqi civilians. In an exclusive interview, four former security contractors told NBC News that they watched as innocent Iraqi civilians were fired upon, and one crushed by a truck. The contractors worked for an American company paid by U.S. taxpayers. The Army is looking into the allegations.

The four men are all retired military veterans: Capt. Bill Craun, Army Rangers; Sgt. Jim Errante, military police; Cpl. Ernest Colling, U.S. Army; and Will Hough, U.S. Marines. All went to Iraq months ago as private security contractors.

"I went there for the money," says Hough.

"I'm a patriot," says Craun.

"You can't turn off being a soldier," says Colling.

They worked for an American company named Custer Battles, hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. They were so upset by what they saw, three quit after only one or two missions.

"What we saw, I know the American population wouldn't stand for," says Craun.

They claim heavily armed security operators on Custer Battles' missions — among them poorly trained young Kurds, who have historical resentments against other Iraqis — terrorized civilians, shooting indiscriminately as they ran for cover, smashing into and shooting up cars.

On a mission on Nov. 8, escorting ammunition and equipment for the Iraqi army, they claim a Kurd guarding the convoy allegedly shot into a passenger car to clear a traffic jam.

"[He] sighted down his AK-47 and started firing," says Colling. "It went through the window. As far as I could see, it hit a passenger. And they didn't even know we were there."

Later, the convoy came upon two teenagers by the road. One allegedly was gunned down.

"The rear gunner in my vehicle shot him," says Colling. "Unarmed, walking kids."

In another traffic jam, they claim a Ford 350 pickup truck smashed into, then rolled up and over the back of a small sedan full of Iraqis.

"The front of the truck came down," says Craun. "I could see two children sitting in the back seat of that car with their eyes looking up at the axle as it came down and pulverized the back."

"I said, 'Wow, what hit this car?'" remembers Hough.

Could anyone have survived?

"Probably not. Not from what I saw," says Hough.

The men assume that in all three incidents the Iraqis were seriously hurt or killed. But they can't be sure.

"It was chaos and carnage and destruction the whole day," says Craun.

Two of the men — Craun and Colling — say they quit immediately.

Craun, in an e-mail two days later to a friend at the Pentagon, wrote: "I didn't want any part of an organization that deliberately murders children and innocent civilians."

Errante says he also quit after witnessing wild, indiscriminate shootings on two other missions.

"I said I didn't want to be a witness to any of these, what could be classified as a war crime," says Errante.

Once back in the U.S., Craun — recipient of the Bronze Star — took the allegations to Army criminal investigators. The Army tells NBC News it's looking into the matter.

This is not the firm’s first brush with controversy. Custer Battles is a relatively new company in the booming field of so-called "private military companies" in Iraq providing veteran soldiers from around the world for various security jobs. Named for founders Michael Battles and Scott Custer, who are military veterans, the company quickly nabbed lucrative contracts in Iraq, where U.S. authorities needed firms who were willing to accept high-risk assignments.


The company is already under criminal investigation for allegations of fraud centering on the way it billed the government. Those allegations are also at the heart of a lawsuit by former associates. In September, the military banned the firm and its associates from obtaining new federal contracts or subcontracts.

Custer Battles denies it committed any fraud, and says the company has been the target of "baseless allegations" made by "disgruntled former employees" and competitors. It has said it hopes that the government will overturn the suspension on new contracts.

In any case, the ban didn’t stop the company from fulfilling its old contracts, such as the missions performed by Craun, Hough, Colling and Errante.

"These aren't insurgents that we're brutalizing," says Craun. "It was local civilians on their way to work. It's wrong."


Anyone who's been there says Iraq is a brutal, deadly place. So why do the men blame Custer Battles?

"Simply, they're negligent," says Colling. "[Just] throwing people out there and then forcing us to use these brutal tactics. They're responsible, absolutely."

Custer Battles declined to be interviewed on camera. The CEO calls the allegations "completely baseless and without merit" and says there's "no evidence" to support them. He adds that the Kurds worked for a subcontractor, not Custer Battles.


The company provided conflicting information about the crushed car but arranged for NBC News to talk to the man who who oversaw the mission on Nov. 8, 2004. Shawn Greene, who still works for Custer Battles in Iraq, spoke by phone with NBC News. He acknowledges that during the mission a pickup truck did roll over the bumper and taillight area of a sedan, which he says refused to move out of the way. Greene denies anyone was injured in the incident.

"There were no children in that vehicle," he insists.

As the leader of the mission, Greene ordered the lead driver to push the vehicle since there had been attacks against convoys in that area in the past.

"He came directly in front of my lead vehicle," says Greene. "That is how that car got in our path. And why he had to be pushed out the way when he refused to move. It wasn't that we went out of our way in any way looking for a car to hit. We don't do that."

But because of the dangers on Iraqi roads, Greene says employees of Custer Battles do sometimes push Iraqi civilian vehicles out of their way if they refuse to move.

"Usually, you know, we give them a tap at about 20 miles an hour or so," he says.

The company also arranged for a phone conversation with its country manager in Iraq, Paul Christopher. The company points out that Christopher is a retired lieutenant colonel who authored a book on the ethics of war and ran the philosophy program at West Point. Christopher maintains the Nov. 8 mission was the only case where a civilian car was damaged by the company in Iraq.

The company provided a photo to NBC News, which it says is the car in question, to prove that the damage was not that severe. In the photo, the passenger compartment of the car seems to be intact.

Craun, Colling and Hough say it's not the same car.

As for the incidents of allegedly wild shooting, Greene also disputes that any innocent Iraqis were killed by gunfire during the mission, although he agrees there were warning shots fired on several legs of the mission.

Likewise, Christopher insists "there has absolutely never been a case of anyone being hurt or killed to my knowledge, except for people who were actively engaged in shooting at us first."

Certainly the company does experience genuine combat conditions. In fact, on one leg of the November mission, the convoy came under a serious attack by Iraqi insurgents. First, the pickup truck driven by Hough was struck by an improvised explosive device, or IED, which killed one of the Iraqi Kurd guards. Then the men fought a pitched firefight against insurgents until the U.S. military arrived.

However, Custer Battles claims all these men are "disgruntled" former employees, who believe the company still owes them money. It says Hough was fired and that Craun once confided to a colleague that he knew the company didn't really kill any children.

So why are these men going public with these allegations now? They say because they care about American soldiers and about winning the war.

"If we continue to let this happen, those people will hate us even more than they already do," says Craun.

And they say that only makes Iraq more dangerous for American soldiers.

[Darth SS]

Darth SS, you are making a very unrealistic and dare I say a bigotted comparison between Rwandans and evil, orc zombies. As if they acted like hordes of creatures. No. They are men, afraid of death like any man is. Also, the genocide didn't occur by hordes of thousands like a feeding frenzy. It was committed man by man, village by village. A group of 10 mercenaries with guns would be the PERFECT rescue operation. They couldn't stop the whole genocide, but they could save perhaps one village at a time. Your belief that the only way to deal with it is "massive armed invasion" is... dead wrong. Re-evaluate your stance.

Cite your source and justify your stance.

My sources? "The Lion, The Fox, and the Eagle" (a book) and "Shake Hands with the Devil" (Romeo Dallaire's memoires of the operation.)

It was a massive movement, and they weren't afraid of death. They had safety in numbers. Plus, I fear you severely underestimate the depths of human hatred. There's many examples of when a poorly armed force didn't run away from a better armed force.

Best examples?

Operation Gothic Serpent in Mogadishu, Somalia.

When the Belgian peacekeepers were killed in Rwanda.

Almost the entire Bosnia conflict.


You also forget that just because you kill some Genocidaires in a village, there's no reason they can't come back when you've left.

[Tydeus]

Tydeus, you're consistently ignoring and dismissing a pervasive argument that has sprung up repeatedly now. Cause-motivated soldiers. Low pay. The inherent dangers of becoming essentially a Western terrorist group. Thus far, you have repeatedly misconstrued it as an assault on all subjective ideological causes when it is, in fact, a warning of the "slippery slope" you've embarked on. How many well-intentioned militia groups started out trying to fight injustice, and now merely growl about the overthrow of the government?
Ah. See, this here is the reason why I write such long posts -- generally an attempt to avoid someone miscontstruing the point I'm trying to make. Specificity would have saved us all a lot of time, along with having to read my enormous, dull posts.

How many idealistic young boys joined a holy corps of Muslim warriors in defense of their homeland from the Soviet invaders, and ended up the enforcers of a dictatorial theocratic regime?

I understand the concern, but perhaps this is not the best example? The analogy is somewhat lacking in the motives for joining Mujhadeen (sp?) corps of soldiers vs the motives for joining the FPA. See, when someone is on the defensive, attempting to combat hostile invaders, those at ideological odds may join together against the greater foe. So, we see a break between leaders of the Mujhadeen and the people actually joining up to fight. The former wished to establish theocracies, enforce hyper-conservative Islamic law, etc. The latter simply wished to defend their homes. However, when leaders give soldiers the chance to achieve their goal, they are presented with a beautiful opportunity to brainwash possible recruits, and transfer the loyalty of their soldiers from one cause to the next.

The nice thing about the FPA is unity of ideology, or what approaches unity as much as can possibly be hoped for by a corporation of human beings. No one is being manipulated, brainwashed, etc. Again, the structure of the leaders fighting alongside the soldiers on the front lines reinforces the unity of ideology, and the comittment of the leaders to ethically defensible goals.

FPA soldiers inherently have some distance from the conflict, as outsiders. The urgency for them is not the same as for those directly involved. The result is a generally less impulsive organization, one which has time to make decisions.

Furthermore, since the FPA is an organization that is based on broader moral imperatives, it would not necessarily become intangled in the local politics the same way that other militias/military organizations do. Indeed, to me, the international character of the FPA is one of its most appealing traits. It leads to a way of thinking that is broader than one conflict. Unlike the young patriots who joined with the Mujhadeen, who had a specific political goal of defending their homes, a goal which had a result that could be actually brought about, the FPA's goals would be so broad and anational, and apolitical that really, the FPA would never truly achieve its goals (one guesses). I mean, it's hard to believe that humans will ever stop comitting atrocities of hate and bigotry against one another. The FPA's mission is, unlike that of basically all other organizations, an all-consuming, never ending one. There is no time to descend down the slippery slope -- the FPA would be forever detained at its peak, dealing perennially with the same damn issue.

But, that is not to call the FPA's cause hopeless or bleak -- the point of the FPA, like any humanitarian organization, is to diminish suffering, resolve conflicts. People will always be trying to start wars of bigotry, tribalism, nationalism, greed, and other less-than-admirable motives, but the FPA would ideally bring them to a close much more quickly, with less overall bloodshed and much less civilian suffering in particular.

So, whereas other forces have transitions -- which are tremendously difficult for individuals and groups to make, no matter when, where or what the transition may be -- to make (say, from rebels fighting an unjust tyranny to governmental security force ensuring the safety and power of the central government), the FPA would remain largely the same, basically for its entire existence. Should such conflicts that the FPA would be involved in ever come to an end -- well, in that enlightened of a world, one doubts that the FPA would alone be given to tyranny in a world of peace and prosperity.

This is what makes the FPA so appealing, to me, at least. The constancy, the stability, the purity of the goals. No muddling through the ever-changing currents of local politics; the FPA's goals, ethical imperatives, and purpose remain seperate always from the specific conflict. Such is the nature of an international and broadly-motivated organization. The UN has similarly remained much the same since its inception, as its goals have never been (and probably never can be) achieved. To me, the FPA is really more like the UN than any terrorist organization. To me, that is the proper analogy.

Is that a better response? I'm trying to address your claim -- I'm not positive I did, but I think I got it. Really, though, I just want to make sure you know I really am trying to take what you're saying into account and respond thoughtfully and not ignore your position. I can't stand it when people do that, so I sympathize.

Furthermore, the tone in which you put it is off. It would have been perfectly fine if, say, you had put it towards enforcing the laws set forth by the whole world based on a common consensus (ideally) of what constitutes a violation of human rights. Instead, you put this group forth to enforce your own personal philosophies and, frankly, that is too dangerous to trust.

Hmmm...I do see what you're getting at here. But, really, I mean, my personal philosophies set down to guide the FPA are in fact very similar to international human-rights laws. That really is the basic structure. I just resist the official endorsement of international law, mainly because the whole point of the FPA is to resist international oversight, in general. In some cases, the FPA would explicitly endorse international law, like regarding prisoners-of-war, in which case the Geneva conventions would be adhered to. In fact, the FPA would do its very best to stay within international law -- I'm merely not informed enough at the moment to know exactly which laws would be officially codified into the internal FPA regulations/doctrines.

But, as I've mentioned several times, I believe, the FPA is essentially a conduit of international will. That's one of my biggest reasons for using Darfur as the archetype for FPA missions -- because there is international consensus, but not an international willingness to make sacrifices to actually stop what's happening. Hardly anyone (and certainly no nation I've heard of) opposes an attempt to stop the genocide, but no one is willing to put their own troops to use to stop it.

I think I mentioned towards the beginning of this thread that the FPA would seek official UN endorsement of its actions whenever possible. If, of course, the naturally slow-moving bureaucratic machinery of the UN sputters and stalls, or is jammed by a single (or very few) nation, despite obvious ethical grounds for action, then the FPA might have to act with only informal approval. But, before I got all off-track with Darth SS and defending the idea that we are capable of determining when some ideologies are worthy of enforcement over others, I think I mentioned this several times.

I believe I also mentioned many times that the FPA would avoid controversial situations generally, such as in Israel/Palestine. There's simply too much contention for the FPA to ever possibly make any progress there, and even if the FPA somehow managed to achieve a more stable peace, most of the world would end up hating the FPA. It wouldn't be in the interests of the FPA to take on regime change or controversial conflicts, simply because it would too likely jeopardize the cetnral, unchanging goal of the FPA. The FPA's motto could probably be considered "Never Again." But with the comittment and firepower and international support to actually do something about it when "again" happens.

Your idea would make a nice story, but it contains too many flaws in both idea and feasability of operation, especially since every time you talk about how you intend to accomplish the difficult bits (regime change, for instance) you assume a massive amount of money and firepower that would be simply impossible for an ideological force to obtain without government backing, especially the way you laid it out, to actually work.

Why not? Like I said -- the Red Cross takes in over $800 million a year. At least at the beginning, the FPA would require nowhere near that amount of funding. A few million would probably be adequate start-up funding (from 5-10 million, probably). The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation dishes out that kind of funding to individual school districts.

My point is, the money is out there, and what's nice about the FPA is that it produces results that can't be undone (well, in the sense that it kills people), which appeals to many people. The kind of take-charge, gung-ho, all-out, full-throttle, hyphenated-cliché nature of the FPA I think appeals to segements of the population that remain largely untapped by secular humanitarian organizations, or (in the case of some of those segments) entirely untapped by any humantarian organizations.

Yes, getting started would be hard. And, yes, I don't know exactly how to go about it. But, it's been done, many times, with great success. And once you get a good 15-30 people over in Africa, saving civilians, you can really turn that into good publicity.

Oh, that reminds me -- another way to enforce proper behavior of soldiers would be the construction of their armor; given that cameras would be employed rather than expose any of the soldiers' face (again, with a visor that could be pulled up if the cameras failed), the feed that the soldiers' theemselves see while out on a mission could be saved and uploaded to the internet, news organizations, or for review by higher-ups within the FPA. Really, it'd be a whole new level of accountability and transparency that I think would in turn foster a lot of confidence in the FPA.

[Dragonsbane]

High tech gear, AGAIN without adressing the cost.
The Red Cross gets support because it is a massive, almost universally recognized organization of healing, whereas your FPA is a tiny mercenary unit. The kinds of organizations that get funding generally are NOT those who carry guns instead of providing education of medical care.

The kind of people you are trying to bring in are kids who watch too much Rambo, people who aren't tapped by humanitarian organizations because those organizations know better.

As for unified ideology, nothing can be more dangerous than an utter unity of opinion. Purity is a filthy, filthy thing...especially when you consider who wanted it in the past. Purity of thought...the Inquisition. Purity of political opinion...Josef Stalin. Purity of race...Adolf Hitler and the Klu Klux Klan. Fortunately, such an utter unity is nearly impossible, especially if the FPA, against all the insurmountable odds succeeded. Again, nice story, but it won't work. Ever.

[42PETUNIAS]

The kind of people you are trying to bring in are kids who watch too much Rambo, people who aren't tapped by humanitarian organizations because those organizations know better.

Uhh... no...

I think primarily the FPA would try to draw recruits from vets. Especially Special Ops types, who generally tend to be (a) very well trained (b) motivated to advance certain moral causes, even at high costs (c) willing to forgo normal life, and (d) very much willing to kill. Generally, it's these same kind of guys who end up doing merc work, but I think this would appeal to their moral sensibilities, and their military sensibilities in a way that basically no other organization does.

High tech gear, AGAIN without adressing the cost.

I think most of the cost he is adressing is the high tech. There arent many people to equip, small wages, etc.

The Red Cross gets support because it is a massive, almost universally recognized organization of healing, whereas your FPA is a tiny mercenary unit. The kinds of organizations that get funding generally are NOT those who carry guns instead of providing education of medical care.

I dont know, making this a charity organization could revolutionize charity giving. Personally, I'd definitly donate to an organization like this, providing it could be shown as an honest organization. I'd rather donate money to an organization that could seriously stop the problem, not just clean up the results, and I'm sure many people like me would be willing to donate.

One of the problems would be how much of the organization would be related to the United States. You seem to be planning on drawing your soldiers, beaurocrats, donations, etc. from the United States. I don't know if this would work, because countries under attack could be able to focus pressure on the United States, making it easier to shut you down. It would be much more resilient if it were based in several countries, not just the western world, but other places as well. Your actions could also foster anti-american hate by people in those countries, and we definitly don't need more of that.

[Tydeus]

High tech gear, AGAIN without adressing the cost.

Well, I did give my estimate of $5-$10 million earlier in the thread for start-up costs. I mean, there's really not that much about the equipment that's tremendously high tech. I mean, the metal alloy is high-tech, but exists. Digital cameras also exist, and generally aren't obscenely expensive. Small LCD screens (or goggles) aren't really that expensive either, nor are computers (one assumes you'd essentially have to have a computer in the armor, in order to regulate air filtration and cooling, monitor vital signs and temperature, transmit/recieve audio and video, and record video and audio to storage. However, none of this is exactly breaking new ground. Nor is air conditioning (one assumes that in the African desert an in-armor cooling system would be necessary), or batteries, or solar cells. I mean, if you look at that, to me, it seems pretty obvious that everything together, minus the actual armor itself, wouldn't run higher than $5,000. To me, even that seems like an excessively high estimate. So, yes, I'm assuming that the alloy used will cost between $45,000 and $95,000 per person. If that means not using Liquid Metal, then I guess some titanium alloy will have to suffice, or whatever happens to be the next most effective, lightweight metal on the market for body armor. So, there's a more detailed enumeration of predicted costs (providing lots of extra room).

The Red Cross gets support because it is a massive, almost universally recognized organization of healing, whereas your FPA is a tiny mercenary unit. The kinds of organizations that get funding generally are NOT those who carry guns instead of providing education of medical care.

Well, for one, the FPA would probably take on work defending those kind of organizations -- many humanitarian workers are being targeted in Darfur, and some organizations are being forced out of the region -- and gain credibility by association. But that's really just a side-note.

Really, like any humanitarian organization, the FPA would definitely demonstrate results, either positive or negative, by which the organization could easily be judged. If the FPA does good things, it will earn credibility -- something all humanitarian organizations must do, and all properous ones have done. If it does not do good things, it will not earn credibility, and will not gain funding, and will rightly go under. This, to me, seems no different from any other organization.

The biggest problem seems to be the initial start-up funding. I mean, $5-$10 million is a lot of money, let's not kid ourselves. Of course, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation dishes that kind of bank out to individual school districts. Not that I'm assuming Gates will back the FPA (though you never know -- worth a shot, assuredly), but my point is that the money is out there, and that every other charitable organization has faced the same problem. I just need to study how other aid organizations were founded, and emulate that model.

As to continued funding, I think once the 20-30 soldiers actually do get armed, armored, trained, and sent to Africa, it'll be no sweat (of course, this is all assuming that the FPA actually performs well. Remember that I am assuming this because, otherwise, this bit here is just a moot point anyway) to get contributions, for three reasons. (1) As you said, it makes an excellent story. The media would go nuts over this -- stoic warriors, risking everything to fight for justice, gaining nothing monetary in return. It's so easy to romanticize, glamorize, and publicize. It sells itself. And, considering the FPA would be taping everything we do, this means either posting daily videos on YouTube, our own website, and/or sending the footage out to various news organizations. It would just be so easy to generate free, good press. And that in turn funnels money into the bank, and gets people interested in becoming a part of the organization. (2) Again, credibility can be earned simply. If the FPA does succeed in doing what it meant to do, then credibility is thus earned. The FPA doesn't have to go out of its way, diverge from its path to earn credibility and public trust. If it fails, well, then it doesn't deserve funding anyway. So, establishing trust is done merely by doing what the FPA set out to do in the first place. (3) It appeals to segements of the population which are either untapped by secular aid organizations, or almost entirely untapped by any aid organizations. This is the kind of charity doves and hawks could endorse (though no doubt the doves would require some proof of good-doing first, but skepticism is never a bad thing). I think a lot of wealthy, right-leaning folks would be compelled to donate their yearly tax-writeoff to the FPA, becuase it would be something that would mesh with their resentment of plodding international bureaucracy, and their easily-aroused sense of moral outrage.

I think most resistance would come from the center-left (many segements of the far-left have reached a kind of bitterness critical mass and, as in the case of animal rights activists and eco-terrorists, have endorsed violence). However, with a little time and some proof of efficacy and integrity, the appropriately skeptical center-left would come around, as that's a generally sensible demographic. So, again, it's in no way an insurmountable obstacle. In fact, once the initial force hits foriegn soil, I think a cascade of funding and publicity is very likely, and I think it in no way unreasonable to expect at least an amount of funding adequate to maintain the FPA.

The kind of people you are trying to bring in are kids who watch too much Rambo, people who aren't tapped by humanitarian organizations because those organizations know better.

Well, that just seems like a silly jab without much evidence, and I think Petunias already dealt with it just as I would have.

As for unified ideology, nothing can be more dangerous than an utter unity of opinion.

In general, I agree that conflict is key to stability, but generally that's when considering the nation-state, at least for me. Dogged obedience is not the same thing as ideological unity. I mean, if everyone genuinely believes that genocide is bad, and that it's acceptable to use force to help broker a peace, is that really so bad? Again, I think ideological unity is not inherently bad -- really, there is almost nothing in this world that I would consider inherently, uniformly, relentlessly bad. Rape and domestic abuse seem to be about all I can think of, simply because there's never, ever a reason for it. Otherwise? I tend to be more relativistic, and consider each situation individually. Of course, general trends can be observed, and used to predict likely outcomes, but ultimately, I think it generaly foolish to assert inherent value. Sometimes, sometimes it's warranted, but generally not.

And I think this ideological unity is not a bad thing. After all -- it's not obedience we're talking about. It's adherence to what is pretty undeniably a logically, philosophically justifiable ideology. (and if it's not justifiable, then someone needs to come up with an argument against it that doesn't invalidate itself, and I haven't heard one of those yet). If someone strays from the cause, then the rest of the group remains adhered to it. That's a good thing, when the cause is so unoffensive, self-sacrificing, and concerned with improving life on earth, at least as I see it (I don't think anyone's really said it's not a justifiable cause except Darth). I wanted to point out also that this minimizes the liklihood of a splintering effect occuring within the FPA.

Purity is a filthy, filthy thing...especially when you consider who wanted it in the past. Purity of thought...the Inquisition. Purity of political opinion...Josef Stalin. Purity of race...Adolf Hitler and the Klu Klux Klan.

Again, you are extrapolating from specific experiences an inherent value. Perhaps "purity" was the wrong word to choose, in light of those connotations, though, in a more strict definition, it seems quite applicable. Pure as in literally "freedom from any admixture or modifying addition." As in, "this wafer of silicon is pure to one part per trillion." Now, my exact words were that the FPA would have a purity of goals. Not purity of thought, politics, or race. Goals. In other words, dedication, single-mindedness, clarity, purpose. My point was to illustrate how the FPA is not vulnerable to the vicissitudes of local political realities in the way that basically all other military organizations are. Most militaries experience a literal impurity of goals. Is this always bad? No, of course not. Often, though, it can lead to problems, specifically ones which you wanted me to address: "How many idealistic young boys joined a holy corps of Muslim warriors in defense of their homeland from the Soviet invaders, and ended up the enforcers of a dictatorial theocratic regime?" - Dragonsbane.

I was trying to point out that, while Islamic youth fighting the Soviets suffered the tumults of changing goals, the FPA would not. After all, the Soviets were beaten, the imperalist agent resisted, and so the goal achieved. Yet, the organizations of nationlistic, militant, religious youth remained -- ripe targets for more dictatorially-inclined leaders of such organizations. It is difficult for someone to suddenly abandon an organization one has grown close to, put one's life on the line for, invested years of one's life in. So, when such an organization has very specific goals, those goals can quickly change, even cease to be, but the organization lives on. The result is that new goals must be found, or the organization will die. Those involved, who have gained so much, found such pride and satisfaction, such a sense of achievement and importance and progress, are of course going to try to keep the organization alive, in whatever manner possible.

In Africa, we've seen this problem time and time agian. While a militant rebel group may be excellent at tearing down a brutally opressive regime, its goals must change radically once that tyrant is removed from power. Somehow, the rebel group must make a complete 180-degree turn, and become the empowered ruling elite. Many of these organizations find the transition so difficult that the goals, once pure, once effectively achieved, possibly to the benefit of many, are now muddied, and the moral source of them is no more. The result is that many of the new goals (of which, I might add, there are many, and they often compete, resulting in a splintering of the organization, ideologically and administratively) come from questionable sources, with questionble effects.

However, if the FPA retains a purity of goals, and those goals are decent, morally justified goals (and I think they are, and I think you think they are as well), then the purity is a good thing. My point was that the FPA's goals are so broad and over-arching that they will never be corrupted, they will never result in splintering and self-interest, so long as there is conflict in the world. And if a day of total peace ever comes (which is, of course, extremely unlikely, if all of human history is any indication), I doubt that the FPA would somehow remain a lone global anachronism, defying the tenets upheld by the rest of such an enlightened world's population.

Fortunately, such an utter unity is nearly impossible, especially if the FPA, against all the insurmountable odds succeeded.

Again, I think your fear is of unquestioning obedience. That is different from unity of purpose. Unity of purpose is not always bad. Civil rights activists had a unity of purpose, and it helped them greatly. The Union had a unity of purpose in the American Civil War (indeed, a specific effort was made to supply such purposes in order to maintain unity). Indeed, most great organizations that we admire exhibited a unity of purpose, but a good purpose.

Again, nice story, but it won't work. Ever.

That seems, ah, a little certain, for a non-psychic (assuming you aren't one, of course. XP).

[Scarmiglione]

Topic Poster:
I don't know if anybody's already mentioned this, but you're basically describing the A-Team. So it's already been done (on TV).

[Tydeus]

Topic Poster:
I don't know if anybody's already mentioned this, but you're basically describing the A-Team. So it's already been done (on TV).

But with bigger guns, obviously. So, it's better.

Also, no '80s hair.

[Demetrius]

I maintain my theory that it would be Mithril from FMP.

[Tydeus]

I maintain my theory that it would be Mithril from FMP.
No idea what that is, actually. Care to elaborate?

Also:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/Rupanius/MercsScaledDown.jpg

Yeah, there's lots of debris on that and whatnot, but I only get to use Photoshop at my dad's office, and thus have limited time to use it. Basically, we left before I had time to really refine anything. Expect a better version later?

[Demetrius]

Tydeus, you are a sad man and you have my pity. FMP=Full Metal Panic; giant robots, submarines, ass kickery and a school girl all wrapped in a story around Mithril, an unaffiliated mercenary organization out to right the wrongs and give justice and mercy the backing it needs. Buy the DVD's, rent 'em or watch it in some other fashion, its worth it and you'd know what I'm talking about.

[Tydeus]

Buy the DVD's, rent 'em or watch it in some other fashion, its worth it and you'd know what I'm talking about.

"Buy the DVD is?" "Buy the DVD has?" "Buy the DVD was?" Nope. Still doesn't make sense....

Come here, apostrophe. We have a shelter for punctuation like you; you don't need to go back to him. He won't change, apostrophe, trust me -- they never do! *sob*

Seriously, though, I'll go do that, what with Giftmas and all.

[Scarmiglione]

Well, I was going to offer to join, but only if we get to be the A-Team and I get to be Hannibal. Otherwise I'm not playing. I don't wanna be a Full Mithril Panic.

[Fifthfiend]

A post shy of limit, but let's cut this off before it degrades into a versus thread between Sosuke and Mr. T.

...Also, yes Full Metal Panic does have giant robots and submarines, and they're basically used as background filler in between long stretches of two of the stupidest fucking anime characters ever, both terminally incapable of grasping the basics of the human sex drive. The whole thing amounts to one shitty one liner (He was raised in the military so he doesn't know about girls haw fuckin' haw!) stretched across two separate series, yes that's right two, because after they'd crammed as much boy-and-girl-totally-failing-at-getting-together into one series, they had so goddamn much left over that they had to make a whole second goddamn series, except the second time around they took out all the fuckin' cool robots so they would have even more room for all the idiot-boy-and-idiot/hella-obnoxious-girl-not-fucking-getting-together that they had to use up.

gasp huff breathe okay, I'm good now.