Skip to main content

View Diary: Mercenaries, war, and my childhood (368 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  To parse this to death (none)
    "You fail to deal with the moral decision to take part in shady operations. "

    Lets try step by step. You presuppose there is a moral choice in choosing Freelance security work over remaining in uniform. Why? What is it? And how are these contractors morally deficient?

    We both think we've saiid all this 1000 times already. So humor me if you will.

    •  Gee, Why Don't You Answer Me Then? (none)
      Because they joined an occupation known for being shady and used for shady purposes in contrast to being in the military that is governed by strict accountability and the law.  You can look at their roles throughout the last 30 years or you can look at the last five years in Colombia.  No one with a moral compass would defend their roles nor an institution with no accountability.  

      Then again, killing is just killing to you.

      Are you going to apologize for your comments regarding anti-vet bias or not? Or continue practice sophistry as you so lamely accuse others?

      •  So this comes down to guilt by association? (none)
        Mercenary is an adjective. Its not a global association or corporation with standards of behavior. Over the past 30 years all the places where mercenaries have committed attrocities have been lawless, or at least have been areas where ther was no higher authority to effectively restrain them.

        None of the things that happened in South America or Africa has been alleged in Iraq. There have been no executions or mass rapes or any of the attrocities that you're harkening back to. They're not even performing the kind of roles currently under way in Colombia. The most anyone can say about them is they're pricks. Which isn't a warcrime last time I checked.

        You have no proof of any misdeed. You just don't like the institution. I agreed that its a bad policy but that doesn't inherently pass on negative motivations or actions to the current contractors.

        As for the Vet bias, I answered that 3 or 4 or 5 posts ago. I don't mind that you rope a dope my arguements ignoring what you can't respond to. But you could at least keep track of things you're avoiding.

        •  I think the institution is immoral because (none)
          of its natural inability to be constrained by the law.  In fact, it is a result of avoiding the law in most cases and hence taking part in it is subject to moral choices.  Bad moral choices. Maintaing institutions that are corrupt and promote the violation of human rights is a choice people make for which they are responsible.  

          And no, you didn't answer the anti-vet bias issue. You avoided it. You claimed,
          "As for the veteran bias, that was not what I meant by the statements you quote. If anything I was referring to a latent pacifism that is too cowardly to contradict the current flag waiving enviornment. So the main question of the righteousness of our forces is ceded, while tangetial aspects of the situation are attacked with full vigor. "

          explained this statement:"==Its like its no longer proper to spit on vets so people are trying to backdoor the sentiment in any way they can. "  

          While I'm not Scalia, a plain reading here contradicts your claims.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site