We'd love to hear your thoughts! If you're not logged in, you can still share your feedback below. Your input helps us improve the experience for everyone. To post your own content or join the conversation, please log in or create an account.
Posted by starlover
singledom may seem like the best option
I'm not even american, so your revelations need work.
You need to be in a psych ward.
Posted by MontgomeryPosted by Sn1p3r187
One individual fights for money, while the other fights for his ideologies or for his nations interests. One side is active military while the other is maybe former. Which would you have went to and why? Today, mercenaries exist but they are outlawed. So in there place are PMCs, Private Military Companies who can not directly engage in offensive operations, but they can provide support for standing militaries. And be offered contracts to defend individuals or certain areas that need security. Standing militaries fight for something, while Private militaries fight for individual gain. What do you like better?
I don't think the two are comparable, tbh.
Obviously, the one fighting for principal would be perceived as noble.
But that doesn't mean he is-- he could have a really fucked up ideology.
The hired guns could conceivably be providing a much needed service (against said ideologues) to a group who lacks the man-power to defend themselves.
That would hardly make them "bad".
So-- it depends.
*shrugs*click to expand
Posted by maelstrom
& as far as comments from the others go, CC said this was a negativity free zone in her first post. Besides, even if this had been created by another it wouldn't have stopped her from commenting negatively if she'd wished to do so.
We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to browse, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more