Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?
|!||THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
The mercenaries work in conjunction with the DOD. Myk 16:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: that does not answer the question. The question is should the companies be allowed to send their own troops in, or should the american government ban this so that the american people are still reliant on the american military for defence.
Yes Since our military is 100% voluntary sometimes you need more people to fill vacancies. Often the mercs fill in for security details for visiting dignitaries and other positions that would normally pull some of our troops off the front line. Jrssr5 08:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Reply But those mercenaries are working under government command, as are the troops on the front line. However, for the purposes of this debate the mercenaries are working for the company, not the american government. The main problem I see with allowing this is that if Americnan companies can build the their own armies, to work under their comand, then those troops might destroy the need for the American government to have an army of it's own. Commanding an army is one of the many things that a government should do for it's citizens, not the other way around. If the comapny wants to help America's military efforts they can just give more money to the government, so that the government can strengthen the military effort as it should.
- Yes It makes sense, here in America we have the free market system, any economics student can tell you it would be a perfectly logical extension of that market to open war to the lowest bidder. Instead of putting our precious youth in danger, we go to war and have an auction for which companies/mercenary groups want to fight it. The demand for war will be balanced by the supply of mercenaries to fight the war. Soon we won't even have to worry about war; we'll just set up a group akin to the FCC to make sure that various mercenary groups don't break the rules (killing thousands of innocent civilians, using nerve gas to save money, etc.) Plus, since mercenaries aren't armies, they don't have to deal with the Geneva convention or prisoners of war. Halliburton can set up an Invasion Division to take over countries with oil supplies instead of waiting for opportunities, thus growing the US economy. We're better than those countries anyways. Fuzzy901 19:00, 6 April 2007 (PST)
Killing people should not be considered to be a business like any other, like Fuzzy901 said, they fall into a gray area regarding the Geneva conventions, and what about the "enemy combatants" the Bush administration believes do not fall under the Geneva conventions, doesn't that mean that a captured mercenary doesn't either? Couldn't a country like, let's say Iran, detain them indefinitely without having to explain themselves, like the US do with Taliban and Al Quieda fighters?
Also mercenaries could commit war crimes and get away with it, since they only have a limited command structure, one that is ultimately concerned only about making a profit, some countries already use mercenaries simply so they can commit war crimes without any evidence leading back to the government, for example the militias in Darfur that are secretely being funded and supplied by the Sudanese government.
Oh, and then there's the price tag, the salaries of mercenaries are up to 4 times higher than that of government soldiers, and guess who's paying them? That's right, the taxpayer!
Using mercenaries may be an option for shady African regimes, but it shouldn't be for any respectable democratic nation.
No. I think that people who are members of the US Military want to serve America. They are doing an honourable and righteous thing by being a member of the military, and they can be trusted to do the right thing. Should a security guard, who isn't directly serving their country, but working for a company (which could have its own agenda) for a salary (which will probably be more than the enlistees of the army) be allowed to fight and kill people? I don't think so. --Newton 21:24, 26 March 2010 (EDT)