Mercenaries for Humanity

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Dragonsbane

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...

Originally Posted by Tydeus

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.

Originally Posted by Dragonsbane

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.

Originally Posted by Dragonsbane

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]

Originally Posted by Dragonsbane

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).

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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.

Originally Posted by DB

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

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

No idea what that is, actually. Care to elaborate?

Also:


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]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

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.