Mercenaries for Humanity

[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...

Originally Posted by Mesden

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.

Originally Posted by Mesden

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.

Originally Posted by Mesden

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?

Originally Posted by Mesden

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.

Originally Posted by Mesden

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.

Originally Posted by Mesden

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.

Originally Posted by Mesden

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

Who would be the more political/bureaucratic leaders? Would there be a distinction?

No.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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

Total.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

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]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

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:

Originally Posted by Mesden

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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?

Originally Posted by Tydeus

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]

Originally Posted by Dragonsbane

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

WRONG!

LINK!

[Darth SS]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

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.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

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.