Foreign troops, Mercenaries and Defence Contractors.

Don’t be a pottymouth boy. There is no place for such in here. Keep that for your home.

Don’t be a patronising twat, and I’ll be nice to you. Also, since when was “pottymouth” normal vocabulary for a grown man? :lol:

As to the usage of the word “liberal” there are various levels. At the broadest level, we are all (with the possible exception of Erwin) living in what are generally called “Liberal Democratic” states. In this manner, the word “liberal” has a meaning much as you have described above, a society that is largely permissive, democratic, protects basic rights, etc. etc. Compared to other broad types of states such as Authoritarian or Totalitarian, Europe and North America are home to ‘liberal’ states.

Within “liberal democracies” the word liberal is used to describe parts of the political spectrum. In the US this seems to be used to describe those who are more of the opinion that “the state knows best”, agreed?

In Europe, the term ‘liberal’ is generally used to describe a philosphy of “We’ll leave it up to the individual to make up their own mind”. The notable exception to this is the “Liberal Democrat” party in the UK, who are fairly socialist in outlook.

The history of the use of the word liberal in the European context, in British Politics at least, dates back to the formation of our Parliamentary system, when we essentially had two opposing viewpoints, the “Liberal” party was one, which espoused what was known as the “nightwatchman” state; low taxes, and minimal intereference in domestic affairs; The Governments main concerns were judged to be Foreign Policy and Defence. This is the ‘Liberal tradition’ as it has existed here in Britain for several hundred years.

The Liberal Party in Britain merged with, I believe, the Social Democrats or somesuch some decades ago, as neither was in a particularly strong position electorally. This has resulted in the Liberal Democrats party, who are broadly similiar to the Democrats in the US, believing in high taxation and state legislation and decision making on many issues. “The state knows best”. They are, on the other hand, also firm espousers of moral foreign policy and environmentally friendly policies.

This is a corruption of the meaning of the phrase ‘liberal’ in politics for most of the last 200-300 years here, which has always meant precisely the opposite. If you think about the word itself, Liberal, liberate, liberty, etc. using the word liberal to describe a political philosophy would only make sense if the philosphy was one which allowed people maximum freedom and minimal state interference.

As to the US, from an outsiders perspective, it seems that the Republicans are the more “liberal” party, IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD, as they seem to subscribe to low taxation and minimal Government control of the economy, industry etc. The Democrats seem to be the more socialist (I’m not saying that they are socialist, only more so than the Republicans) party, who espouse greater state intervention, higher taxation, etc.

As to Libertarian, this term is understood here to be a US term for “classicaly liberal”, is this not the case then?

Libertarians are interested in maximum personal freedom & minimal governmental interference, and do not believe that the government should coerce anyone into anything. You make it sound like it’s a covert operation to convert conservatives into “liberals” (I assume you’re using the US meaning) - it’s not. Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially classically Liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Libertarians believe that governments should be held to the same moral standards as the individuals of which they are composed. Thus, they oppose government initiation of force, even if it is supported by a democratic majority. Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others then government should leave them in peace. As a result, they oppose prohibition of "victimless crimes." This opposition to coercion extends into the economic realm, as they generally oppose taxation and government interference in business activities (other than to forbid coercion). Those who do not oppose taxation support it only to the extent that no more taxes are levied than they believe necessary to maximize the protection of individual liberty. Libertarians aim to reduce the size and scope of government. To the extent that libertarians advocate any government at all, its functions tend to be limited to protecting civil liberties and economic liberties (by protecting private property and a free market) through a police force, a military (with no conscription), and courts. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, maintain that these institutions should be privately owned, operated, and funded.

Read the whole article to get an idea about what libertarianism is about.

You didn’t understand what I’ve said. Let me try this again. The definition of liberalism in it’s most commonly used context, as in the description of it that I posted from Wikipedia, is what liberalism means in most countries today around the world. It is not a description of liberalism in the US. It is a generalized description of liberalism as it exists in the majority of political contexts around the world at this time. Thus the title “Liberalism Today” for the sub-article. Follow me now…

With me so far? OK.

By that description of liberalism in general in the world today, the term applies more as a description of the agendas of liberals in the US than it does in the UK. You have already stated that “liberal” in the US means more like what “conservative” means in the UK, and what is conservative in the UK is more like “liberalism” in the US.

Right? OK. It that is so as you say it is…

Then the description given by wikipedia for what liberalism means in more places of the world than not, as described by Wikipedia, applies more to what liberalism means in the US than it does in the UK.

Did you follow that? Once more, the following is a description of what liberalism means in more places of the world today than not:

"Liberalism Today

In general, liberals favor constitutional government, representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals at various times have embraced both constitutional monarchy and republican government. They are generally opposed to any but the milder forms of nationalism, and usually stand in contrast to conservatives by their broader tolerance and in more readily embracing multiculturalism."

THAT very much describes liberalism in the US. It is very much NOT what describes conservatives in the US. Continuing:

Furthermore, they generally favor human rights and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press (while holding various positions on whether people have an inherent right to the means of economic subsistence).

Again, this precisely describes liberals in the US, and is very much NOT what is called conservatism in the US. Continuing:

However, the liberal commitment to unrestricted individual liberty is not necessarily absolute: as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre…,” and liberal parties support restrictions on incitement to violence."

“Liberals also somewhat believe in a free market and free trade, but they differ in the degree of limited government intervention in the economy which they advocate.”

In general, government responsibility for health, education and alleviating poverty fits into the policies of most liberal parties. But virtually all of them, even American liberals, tend to believe in a far smaller role for the state than would be supported by most social democrats, let alone socialists or communists. "

Again, this precisely describes liberals in the US, and shows that liberals in the US are NOT more like socialists in the US, as someone stated. Continuing:

Liberals generally believe in a neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine how individuals can pursue happiness. This self-determination gives way to an open mind in ethical questions. Most liberal parties support the ‘pro choice’ movement and advocate equal rights for women and for homosexuals.

Once more, this precisely describes liberals in the US and does not describe conservatives in the US. Continuing:

Equality before the law is crucial in liberal policies, and racism is incompatible with liberalism

Precicely describes liberals in the US. Continuing:

"All liberal parties are secular, but they differ on the issue of anti-clericalism. Liberal parties in Latin countries tend to be very anti-clerical.

Liberals agree on the idea that society should have very limited interests in the private behavior of its citizens in the areas of private sexual relations, free speech, personal conscience or religious beliefs, as well as political association. Assurance of personal liberties and freedom, particularly in the case of individual expression, is highly important to liberalism. As John Rawls put it, “The state has no right to determine a particular conception of the good life”. The left-wing of liberalism, especially in the United States, considers it fundamental that society has a responsibility to guarantee equal opportunity for each of its citizens."

Precicely the description of liberals in the US. Continuing:

“In general, liberals do not believe that the government should directly control any industrial production through state owned enterprises, which places them in opposition to social democrats.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

The general description which applies to the majority of liberal political agendas in the world today is the same as the general description of liberalism in the US. If that is so, then liberalism means something in the UK that is does not mean according to the general description of liberalism in the world today.

I hope you understand what I said now.

IRONMAN,

Why have you never answered any direct question that I have asked you?

I can only conclude that you are a coward and a moron.

Why have implied that I have lied about my service in the British Army?

Why have you not responded to any of my PMs?

Why are you such an opinionated and condescending idiot?

How little courage does it take to respond to questions on an internet forum?

Tubs

There is no such “problem”. Where do you get such crap? The “ultr-conservatives” in the US are a minority, and their political influence is less than that of right-leaning moderates. Likewise, liberals in the US have a smaller percentage of the political power in the US than do moderates, but theirs is more than that of “ultra-conservatives”! The “ultra-conservatives” and the extreme liberals both have less political power than the majority. “Ultra-conservatives” do not “run the show” as you stated in the US at all. In fact, that is very much NOT the case. The largest percentage of political prowess in the US is that of moderates. I think you are very confused about politics and culture in the US.

You are giving the far right in the US far more political power in your mind than they actually hold. Far more. People who believe such as that, or anywhere near that, are not so much politically empowered in the US.

As a moderate, I would agree with that. That is where libertarianism comes into play.

I agree that political parties are a problem, but only because they exist. The fact that there are parties at all is the real problem, as one is always fighting the other for control. Having more parties would not improve the system in the US, but would only compound it. It would make it increasingly difficult for the government to accomplish anything worthwhile. if there were no parties at all, politicians would have to be more responsive to the needs and wishes of the people and less responsible to the party. For example, the electoral College system is completely outdated and should be abolished. There is a growing sentimant toward this in the US among people of both parties. The reason it is continuously more dislike over time is because it stands between the individual and their vote. This is like the way parties stand between the government’s responsiveness to the nation and it’s responsiveness to political parties, and to industry.

You belittle yourself with such language.

Give it some though. You’ll figure it out.

although I would love to get involved in this argument i will wait until my exam results come through, Doing a degree at the moment in International political theory - consequently i am fairly well grounded in this area - as is Ale.

My departments only failing is that it allows me a great deal of time to drink, as a result I will wait for my results before throwing my intellectual weight against your straw barricade of derision and confused allegory.

Give it some though. You’ll figure it out.[/quote]

Give it some what though?

You still haven’t answered any questions.

Can I respond wittily with rolling eyes yet? I know that’ll make everything alright - my probation officer told me that I wouldn’t want little boys any more if I posted rubbish on this site and, after all, rolling eyes are so clever and erudite!

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Tubs

Good luck Bluffcove, I’ve just got mine (2:1 in Politics woohoo!). Does Sandhurst await?

Good lord, Ironman, Libertarians are not left wing - they are economically right-wing! Left-wingers believe in State intervention in all manner of things, particularly the economy, Libertarians believe in a minimalist state which keeps its bloody nose out.

Where do you get this from? Perhaps you’re confusing Libertarians with the Libertine Left, who believe that people are inherently bad and thus the State has to control people as much as possible. Libertarians believe that people are inherently good & can be left to their own devices as far as possible!

Almost any thread involving definitions & terminology ends up with an Ironman interpretation of that term which bears little or no resemblance to what it actually means.

I think that you misunderstand what libertarianism means. This will help.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stanford University
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social – rather than economic – issues libertarianism tends to be “left-wing.” It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism – right-libertarianism – there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism.” Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.).”

Libertarianism is often disquised as being right-wing, when in fact, it is not. While Liberals try to use the government as their pawn, Libertarians try to prevent the government from doing things which promote Moderatism and Conservativism. See what I mean? The end result is that both are opposed to the promotion of the right wing’s agendas.

JAN SAID…

Remember that incident in May when 16 security contractors were arrested by soldiers of the USMC for firing without reason at civilians and also opening fire on a Marine OP?
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1718477,00.html

The contractor now complain that the Marines just harrassed them because they earn $200,000 a year.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0613/dailyUpdate.html
But from this article:
“The contractors said they had fired shots in the air to get a stalled truck to move, but no one had shot at the tower. The captain didn’t believe the story, and detained all 16 men, as well as three Iraqis who were with them.”

Since when do you get a stalled truck moving by firing into the air? And where did the bullets land?
I think Iraq and the US forces would be better off without such cowboys.
I think the Marines have been rightly angry, because this irresponsible behaviour caused antipathy towards the Marines within the Iraqi population and this in turn endangers the lives of the Marines.

I wonder to whom those mercenaries are accountable?

Jan

Does anyone know how things like this are regulated, for instance at the inevitable hearing, if the PMC were contracted to the US military who will provide legal representation?

If a Marine were to have been killed by the PMC fire, would the end result have been dismissed as a blue on blue, or murder? I appreciate that the individual soldiers are still covered by the sovereignty of the state for whom they fight, but at what level does this cease. A soldier sworn to the crown or the flag would surely be a casualty of war if shot by someone fighting not for queen or country but for cash.

If not fighting in your national interest it becomes fighting in your own interest, and at that point what differnet are you to any armed man?

Bluff,

Yes I am asking alot of questions, all of which have factual answers, please do not reply with conjecture, unless it is marked as such!

please FFS PLEASE :shock:

Does anyone know how things like this are regulated, for instance at the inevitable hearing, if the PMC were contracted to the US military who will provide legal representation?

Under UK law if you employ someone you are responsible for there work under H&S regulations, but this only applies to the UK main land not on bard ships registered in UK ports. As part of the child protection legislation I think UK citizens can be prosecuted for crime committed over seas but would not apply in this case. UK citizens employed by the MOD come under military law, but does the MOD employ any PMCs?

If a Marine were to have been killed by the PMC fire, would the end result have been dismissed as a blue on blue, or murder?

Good point.

One would think that they come under Iraqi law but who would investigate and prosecute?

See the intro to the article that Jan posted on the assessment of fourth generation conflicts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42774-2005Jan27.html
vietnamese family gain citizenshi due to sons service with the USMC

7000 marines arent US citizens! Wow, thats like saying 7000 Brit Mil arent UK citizens as we and the US Marine Corps are about the same size (correct me if Im wrong there).

So are the US actively recruiting them or do they have to travel to the US to join?

This harks back to an old argument with you know who.
At last count there were 41000 non-US citizens in the US Military, mainly Army and Marines.
The highest proportion by far are, as you would expect, Latinos.
It would seem they travel with the intent of joining up, particularly since after September 11th 2001, Bush announced that anyone serving in the US military would obtain citizenship faster than normally.
There have been one or two incidents of recruiters crossing the border into Mexico, but when it has come to light, they’ve been slapped down by the DoD and High Command.

I suppose in some way this does make sense. The US has a high incidence of illegal immigration. These people work in the black economy, so I suppose letting them join the Military they are actually getting something out of them and giving something in return.

I knew some Filipinos, who were soldiers in the US Army Berlin Brigade (My first wife was a Filipina, and she got into contact with them by meeting the wives of the soldiers in the local Asian food shops, so later I got introduced the blokes as well).

As far as I understand, the guys got themselves a green card (working visa) first and, once inside the US, went to the local recruiter’s office.
Normally it takes 5 years for a green card holder to be elegible for the US citizenship. If you serve in the military and thus have shown your willingness to risk your arrse for your new country, you will be elegible already after three years.
This also fits with the contracts American soldiers sign. Their enlistments usually last for three years, and then get extended for another three years. A Filipino sergeant in the US Army explained it to me like this:
During your first contract, you’ll be usually serving in a fairly menial position, so it doesn’t matter if you are a foreign national, but for after three years you will be promoted to positions where you will have access to military secrets, so that the military prefer you to be a citizen if you want to continue to serve.

BTW, AFAIK, in Britain, when you still had national service, any young man with a permanent residence in the UK, no matter which nationality, was elegible for national service.

Jan