or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Duff_Man

You really have to specify what kind of mercenary, here. As I mentioned before, most of the 'mercenaries' our western forces are using aren't true mercenaries. Rather, the bureaucracy is using outsourcing as a device to continue to use skills and talents that had been previously canned or retired. Quote: Originally Posted by Piobaire Duff_Man, your little hello kitty reminds me of the colour of kilts the London Scottish Regiment wear. That's...
Tell them that there are no other kids, no facilities to deal with kids and that their kids would be super bored?
Quote: Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto In Sierra Leone's case, why would a corporation get involved? No one would touch their conflict diamonds, but the warlords and RUF. It's not all necessarily going to be corporation vs. militia. (although, in Sierra Leone's case it is alleged that EO was to be paid by the gov't in diamond rights which would then be sold to DeBeers) Often, it'll be (and already is) warlord vs. warlord, etc. But generally...
Quote: Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto You mean Phoenician-themed snark? Sorry, once I get the the classical age and beyond everything off the top of my head kinda coalesces into a mess.
Quote: Originally Posted by NorCal We have Black Water, Gaddafi has a bunch of random N. Africans, countries all over the world have done it for centuries. Is there a place for mercenary armies in the modern world? Does hiring mercenaries work to circumvent and undermine the agreed upon rules of engagement? Does the existence of non-traditional foes (the terrorists) make necessary non-traditional armies? Thoughts of the CESS? Also, shame on...
Quote: Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto Battle of Zama Are you actually looking for me to discuss this, (my core base is contemporary 'mercenaries', but I do have a solid understanding of the history of the phenomenon), or is this another iteration of your Roman-themed snark?
Quote: Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto Oh, please enlighten us, Hamilcar. Give me a point to discuss. Quote: Originally Posted by JustinW I will second if you amend your motion to read: Perplexing Shallow but Pompous Waxing I like this very very much.
Quote: Originally Posted by NorCal Please elaborate. It's just very clear that people don't really have a developed schema for understanding military privatization, how widespread it is, how widespread it always has been, and the (some quite mundane) realities of it, but have read a Jeremy Scahill book or something and are jumping in on the intellectual flavour of the month.
The abundance of shallow but pompous waxing on military privatization, both contemporary and through history, here is vexing.
This thread upsets me.
New Posts  All Forums: