Comments on: On the scourge of mercenary arms (in Iraq) http://themoderatevoice.com/15725/on-the-scourge-of-mercenary-arms-in-iraq/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Mon, 28 May 2012 07:24:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: domajot http://themoderatevoice.com/15725/on-the-scourge-of-mercenary-arms-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-102939 domajot Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:12:42 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/society/history/15725/on-the-scourge-of-mercenary-arms-in-iraq/#comment-102939 "They are not armies, technically not even mercenaries." You can call them whatever you want, technically, but that does not change the situation by one iota. “They are not armies, technically not even mercenaries.”

You can call them whatever you want, technically, but that does not change the situation by one iota.

]]> By: Bones_708 http://themoderatevoice.com/15725/on-the-scourge-of-mercenary-arms-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-102926 Bones_708 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:42:53 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/society/history/15725/on-the-scourge-of-mercenary-arms-in-iraq/#comment-102926 They are not armies, technically not even mercenaries. With the basic premise so wrong it makes it more than a little hard to follow the logic of the argument. They are not armies, technically not even mercenaries. With the basic premise so wrong it makes it more than a little hard to follow the logic of the argument.

]]> By: domajot http://themoderatevoice.com/15725/on-the-scourge-of-mercenary-arms-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-102870 domajot Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:22:19 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/society/history/15725/on-the-scourge-of-mercenary-arms-in-iraq/#comment-102870 Private armies are but one sign of how the meaning of the term 'nation state' is eroding. The change, I believe, centers around expectations of allegience. Conglomorates and corporations in the global market owe their allegience only to themselves and seek to minimize duties toward a nation state as much as possible, by using off-shore tax shelters, for ecample. Listeing to Blackwater's Prince during his PR round of interviews, I realized that despite his protestations of being a patriot, he was actually just another international businessman, whose primary allegience is to his own business and its profits, not to any nation at all. If he can be hired by the US, there is nothing to stop him from signing a contract with a higher bidder entailing services directly oppossed to US interests. These armies, who hire individuals from nations around the globe, become little circles of independent power with the potential for becoming big circles of independent power, capable of challenging the armies of nation states. Between the international market place, which thas the effect of discouraging national allegience and the private armies whose allgegience can only be bought, the power of a ntion state like the US is being squeezed out. It isn't just what's happening in the Iraq war or with a current admininstration. I wonder if any of our leaders have seriously looked at how globalizaion and privatization work together to reshape the nature of a nation state. Globalization and international businesses can't be stpped, BTW, and trying to do so would be self-destructive. I get the feeling, though, we are on a train with no idea where it's going, and no one seriously thinking about how to meke our presence on the train work in our interests. What does it mean when we are dependent on private armies whose alliegience depends on the money value of tusiness contracts? Private armies are but one sign of how the meaning of the term ‘nation state’ is eroding. The change, I believe, centers around expectations of allegience.

Conglomorates and corporations in the global market owe their allegience only to themselves and
seek to minimize duties toward a nation state as much as possible, by using off-shore tax shelters, for ecample.

Listeing to Blackwater’s Prince during his PR round of interviews, I realized that despite his protestations of being a patriot, he was actually just another international businessman, whose primary allegience is to his own business and its profits, not to any nation at all.

If he can be hired by the US, there is nothing to stop him from signing a contract with a higher bidder entailing services directly oppossed to US interests.

These armies, who hire individuals from nations around the globe, become little circles of independent power with the potential for becoming big circles of independent power, capable of challenging the armies of nation states.

Between the international market place, which thas the effect of discouraging national allegience and the private armies whose allgegience can only be bought, the power of a ntion state like the US is being squeezed out.

It isn’t just what’s happening in the Iraq war or with a current admininstration. I wonder if any of our leaders have seriously looked at how globalizaion and privatization work together to reshape the nature of a nation state.

Globalization and international businesses can’t be stpped, BTW, and trying to do so would be self-destructive.
I get the feeling, though, we are on a train with no idea where it’s going, and no one seriously thinking about how to meke our presence on the train work in our interests.

What does it mean when we are dependent on private armies whose alliegience depends on the money value of tusiness contracts?

]]>