Talk:Mercenary/Archive 1

message: This is most definitely a dictionary entry.  Shall we expand it with a list of mercenaries throughout history, or simply delete it?
:I disagree; it's one of those topics where a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry can't help being similar. An encyclopedia should be able to answer the question "what's a mercenary?". I don't think it's a dictionary entry just because it's short: sometimes there isn't much else to say! Mswake 09:07 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
----
Removed incorrect information....
:enlists in the military service of a foreign government risks losing their American citizenship.  An exception has been made for dual American-Israeli citizens who are required by Israeli law to serve in that nation's military.  Many countries have similar laws, so a mercenary risks losing their home nation's citizenship and becoming a "stateless person."
The Neutrality Act does not provide for the loss of citizenship.  Serving in the military of another country
was ground for loss of citizen under the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act but this was ruled unconstitutional in
1967.
The gory details are here
http://travel.state.gov/military_service.html
and there is no special exception in US law for military service or anything else for dual US-Israeli citizens.
User:Roadrunner
----
Changed wording for Executive Outcomes.
I don't think that anyone would seriously think that Executive Outcomes was a proxy for the current South African
government.  The staff of EO consisted of members of the South African Defense Forces who realized that they had no future in post-Apartheid South Africa.
User:Roadrunner
---
Who argues this....
:The legal status of civilian contractors, particularly logistics staff and equipment technicians, serving with miltary forces is unclear.  It has been argued that they are functionally mercenaries because they are assisting in active military operations even though they are not firing weapons at the enemy.  This is not a hypothetical concern.  In the United States Navy for example, the typical aircraft carrier has between 50 and 100 civilians aboard acting as technicians, manufacturer's representatives, etc.
----
"Swiss mercenaries were sought after during the latter half of the 15th century as "
after or during? Omegatron
---
From 
:mer·ce·nar·y    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mûrs-nr)
:adj. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain. 
:Hired for service in a foreign army. 
:n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies 
:One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling. 
:A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army. 
The current Wiki definition
:A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, regardless of ideological, national or political considerations.
I'm unhappy with all these definitions.  Almost all soldiers receive money for service.  Are all paid soldiers then mercenaries?  What about non-traditional soldiers who aren't motivated solely by money?  
The Wiki definition is unclear.  Which is meant?
"A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, and not for ideological, national, or political considerations."
"A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, and may or may not have ideological, national, or political considerations."
I think the salient characteristics are "uses force" "earns money" and "is not a part of a national army".  "Works, directly or indirectly, for a national government" is probably necessary to differentiate between security guards and mercenaries.  But then what about a corporate "guard" who does more than passive security (e.g. recovers a captured oil rig by force)?  I'll mull this over more, and may attempt a better definition soon.  Input is appreciated.--M4-10 07:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I believe there is no such thing as 'Stover's Laws of War'. This was merely the last anon's vandalism, as s/he had prior to this added 'Tony's Laws of War' and subsequently changed it to 'Stover's'. I certainly couldn't find anything in Yahoo Search to that effect. Dieter Simon 01:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stover's Laws of War

message: :There are exceptions to the rule, however, when there are ideological mercenaries, so-called Contradictors. They fight for whatever is the best cause.
What is a "Contradictor"?
Would they be defined under the Geneva conventions "Protocol I" as a mercenary? A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c)  is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
:Another kind of mercenary would be a bounty hunter, who enlists to a government's or invidual's mission to undertake someone, dead or alive. This sub-kind of mercenary was popularized in Western-movies.
A bounty hunter is not another kind of mercenary because they are not usually employed in an "armed conflict" as defined by the laws of war. Philip Baird Shearer 19:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source which says that "contradictor" is a person who fights for idelogical reasons and that people who fight for idelogical reasons are "generally considered to be mercenaries".  Because under the laws of war if a person fights for ideology and not "essentially by the desire for private gain" then they are not a mercenary. In many wars people fight as combatants for ideological reasons. For example the foreign elements of the SS or the  foreigners, (including Americans before the States entered the war in the Eagle squadrons), who fought in the RAF during World War II. None of them were mercenary. But American pilots of the Flying Tigers who had "material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" were.  Philip Baird Shearer
And as for the bounty hunter, "usually" is the key word here. Yes, they might not be a part of the "conventional" war kind, but they might be enlisted by one side of the conflict's participants to help them f.eg track down an enemy leader. Thus they are indirectly a part of the armed conflict, just not directly under a batallion of soldiers fighting in the front lines. I'm not sure what the so-called "laws of war" says although, perhaps you could elobarate. This is the most widespread view of it, nevertheless, and I'm still sure my stance stands corrected. If you are convinced, them please let the text back in to the article.-OleMurder 09:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: There are many professions which mercenaries may be employed to do as combatants in an armed conflict. "Bounty hunter" is only one possibility, although if they are not dressed in uniform and are operating behind the front lines they may be guilty of more war crimes than being a mercenary. As we do not list all the possible range of activities which could be ones that a mercenary could do. Eg from private to field marshal. I do not see why "bounty hunter" (BH) should be singled out. Particularly in the introduction, and when a BH can be a defined as a BH without "take[ing] a direct part in the hostilities" as part of an "armed conflict" and so not qualifying as a mercenary. It does not bring any clarity to the article. Philip Baird Shearer 16:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictor and Bounty Hunter

message: Please ensure words are spelled either the American or British way, not a mixture of both, it's either organization and organized or organisation and organised. There was a tie with three words being spelled -ized / -ization and three -ised / -isation. Have come down on the American -z as first word was spelled that way. Call me pedantic, but minds have to be made up. It's yet another means of making an article encyclopaedic. Dieter Simon 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American or British spelling