I use the word traitor because that's what a friend of mine who's joining the forces referred to one British soldier as when he refused to return to Iraq because he was morally comprimised and instead chose to speak out and join protest marches... I guess the argument does exist that once a soldier speaks out against a campaign, he ensures that his comrades died for nothing.
It got me thinking, I mean, I happen to be firmly anti-militarist so I'm very willing to believe stuff like what this man describes was going on in Iraq on a daily basis: We know more about the Vietnam war than the contemporary citizens of the day did now, and we know what kind of atrocities were committed there, so why should we assume this modern conflict is any different? But my prime trail of thought is about the perceived validity of this soldier's statements... There are a good few pieces of written evidence about the war, easy to acquire and circulate... and yet popular perceptions aren't changed... Sure, people were against the Iraq war from the start and more swung over, though I can't help but feel the latter only did so once our soldiers were being sent home in bodybags... But what I want to know, Dakka, is why people are still ardent militarists, more specifically, good Christian people who I'm sure would object to torture, racism, tyranny and hatred... Does a blind commitment to our "brave boys" make us consciously overlook allegations of war crimes?
Of course, if this man is lying... or wrong... or witness to an isolated case, do any of us genuinely believe at the bottom of our hearts that militaries aren't, by nature, dark organisations? Any group that demands complete obedience and seeks to root out individuality whilst simultaneously cultivating aggression must surely have "anger issues" within it? Why else would soldiers have committed suicide during peace time here in the UK? Or racial allegations float about? Or, like in this post, allegations of abuse and torture?
To relate the post to the title: Do you believe whistle-blower soldiers? What do you think of them? Do they betray the men on the front? I happen to disagree with the latter though I can see both sides, probably because studying English made me admire Siegfried Sassoon... a heroic Officer of the First World War who left his men (and felt great pain at having done so) because he recognised that making it known how big a mistake the war was, was far more important than being with his men.
Henners91 wrote:But what I want to know, Dakka, is why people are still ardent militarists, more specifically, good Christian people who I'm sure would object to torture, racism, tyranny and hatred... Does a blind commitment to our "brave boys" make us consciously overlook allegations of war crimes?
I think that people often can't separate between being patriotic and supporting the troops from holding them accountable for their actions. I wholeheartedly support those who are serving overseas, but I will admit that there have been in the past, probably are now, and probably will be human rights violations. As much as soldiers are transformed into instruments of government policy, they are still individuals on some level and still bear their own personal prejudices. If you're wrong, you're wrong, like in the case of Abu Ghraib, but supporting your countrymen serving far, far away and condemning the acts of a few are not mutually exclusive.
Henners91 wrote:Of course, if this man is lying... or wrong... or witness to an isolated case, do any of us genuinely believe at the bottom of our hearts that militaries aren't, by nature, dark organisations? Any group that demands complete obedience and seeks to root out individuality whilst simultaneously cultivating aggression must surely have "anger issues" within it? Why else would soldiers have committed suicide during peace time here in the UK? Or racial allegations float about? Or, like in this post, allegations of abuse and torture?
Militaries are not any darker organizations than the governments they serve. There is civilians oversight in almost everything we do, at least here in the United States, and ultimately we are subservient to the government and are acting on civilian orders.
I completely disagree with your 'anger issues' statement. The whole 'cultivating aggression' is a common misconception among civilians because we're seen training aggressively. Military operations are usually conducted under the concept of 'violence of action ensures success' which means that if we're fighting you we're going to do our damnedest to kill you and accomplish the mission, but after the cease fire orders come down things stop on a dime. The perfect soldier isn't some blood-crazed berserker but is cool and composed all the time, ready to follow orders.
Why would soldiers have committed suicide? The same reason anyone else commits suicide, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you don't have emotions and problems like anyone else. Though, for the record, death is an unauthorized rest position.
The military doesn't have a monopoly on racists, they're present in every group in society. I do think that the military let some things slide after 9/11 that they shouldn't have, but like I said earlier, soldiers are still people and have personal prejudices just like other people. The military certainly did let some things slide in regards to torture and the ethical treatment of detainees, and that was dead wrong, but I think this guy is rehashing old news. He's wearing the DBU, which was phased out of service in 2005, which was right around the time the Abu Ghraib scandal was coming to light.
Henners91 wrote:To relate the post to the title: Do you believe whistle-blower soldiers? What do you think of them? Do they betray the men on the front? I happen to disagree with the latter though I can see both sides, probably because studying English made me admire Siegfried Sassoon... a heroic Officer of the First World War who left his men (and felt great pain at having done so) because he recognised that making it known how big a mistake the war was, was far more important than being with his men.
You're a whistle blower if you're calling your chain or command or subordinates on violating the Laws of Warfare, Geneva Convention, or some order or regulation. You are not a whistle-blower if you refuse to go back to the war zone, you're spitting on your oath to your country and the people you were serving with. Just personal opinion, that refusing to follow lawful orders to return to the front is a blatant betrayal of your comrades and country.
Let me be the first to call Sassoon a deserter and a traitor who got off lightly. I don't doubt his courage (who could in light of his medals and achievements in France?) but he betrayed his country and forsook his soldiers. It's one thing for a soldier to leave, but for a commander to desert is the ultimate treason. He should have been shot or hanged for such blatant dereliction of duty and desertion.
I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable. My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.
What you say about Sassoon is the great example of this: Here was a man who saw the fighting of WWI for the slaughter it was, who believed the war was being waged incompetently, a view I'm sure that most modern observers with hindsight would support: And yet you say he should've swung from a gallows. I believe he was fully aware of the gravity of what he was doing but realised that the slaughter of WWI was a worthy cause to try stop.
Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be... the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing: Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.
Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
Having been to Iraq and knowing many others that have also gone I think people like this are full of gak and also cowards. Same old tired rhetoric from someone trying to justify his inability to fulfill his Oath.
Henners91 wrote:Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
You are correct that some Americans did not see a strong military as a good thing for the nation. Thomas Jefferson was the main proponent of keeping things small and minimal in terms of he wanted the Federal government to be in control of. It is not so much we did not want a strong army, but that at the time when our nation was young, balanced budgets and minimal intervention into the rights of the people were common beliefs. Ergo, America would of been against the build up of the nation's armies because it would mean run away spending and possibly tyranny, but the economical and libertarian aspects of the argument were stronger than the threat of a danger from the military.
I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable. My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.
One in every 2500 UK citizens is deployed abroad. You are not more militant then you were during the cold war and significantly less so then during WW2.
Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be... the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:
If he's like the rest of the UK presence in Iraq he was sitting in a base in one city. Those are crimes because discipline is a requisite for an armed service to function. He could not be trusted to perform his duty and committed something he knew was a crime and something he signed up to do. This was not forced on him. He is not a victim.
Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.
A soldier is required by law to refuse and report orders that are deemed illegal or war crimes by the geneva conventions as well as several other treaties. You are using hyperbole to make him out to be better then he is.
Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
No part of that paragraph actually represents how the world works or worked previously.
Henners91 wrote:I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable.
This is not unique to the last half century. It's true of civilizations throughout history. It isn't limited to military service. Many societies and groups have viewed public service as very respectable.
My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.
You don't lose any constitutionally protected rights in the US Military. You're rights may be restricted by the nature of military service but you don't lose them. This is a myth perpetuated by people who've never read the code of conduct.
What you say about Sassoon is the great example of this: Here was a man who saw the fighting of WWI for the slaughter it was, who believed the war was being waged incompetently, a view I'm sure that most modern observers with hindsight would support: And yet you say he should've swung from a gallows. I believe he was fully aware of the gravity of what he was doing but realised that the slaughter of WWI was a worthy cause to try stop.
Desertion is desertion. Good intentions don't factor into a matter of law. Either it was broken or it wasn't. When you start making exceptions because "he did it for a good reason" the entire concept of law and justice loses its purpose and system loses credibility.
Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be...
Yes. I can see how a soldier is not a risk at all. After all, President Obama WILL jump in front of poor Private Ricky and take that bullet for him. The Government doesn't protect soldiers in the way this statement seems to suggest. Quite the opposite actually.
the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:
I can understand where you're coming from. But most deserters don't desert because they think something horrible is happening. They desert to save their own butts.
Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.
Not every soldier commits war crimes. What immoral actions?
Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled:
Less to do with the threat of a military to democracy, which a military is not inherently threatening to a democracy, and more to do with fear of big government. The first 150 years of US history were heavily influenced by fears of the big mean government. Not the military in particular.
I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
Up until WWII-onwards, and after the Articles of Confederation, the US Military was about the same as any other. It was smaller than most but back then the US was somewhat isolationist and had little interest in events beyond it's boarders. So long as the world left American alone, America didn't really care. This changed with Manifest Destiny and post Civil War America. The US followed world suit in the rise of nationalism. Nothing really all that different about it.
Henners91 wrote:Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
You are correct that some Americans did not see a strong military as a good thing for the nation. Thomas Jefferson was the main proponent of keeping things small and minimal in terms of he wanted the Federal government to be in control of. It is not so much we did not want a strong army, but that at the time when our nation was young, balanced budgets and minimal intervention into the rights of the people were common beliefs. Ergo, America would of been against the build up of the nation's armies because it would mean run away spending and possibly tyranny, but the economical and libertarian aspects of the argument were stronger than the threat of a danger from the military.
Most states were ineffectually governed in early america and there was little need for a unified national military. Over the next few hundred years we became more unified and our economic and thus military capability improved. Early america was highly militant, our national military simply didn't coalesce until later. America has historically always been very militaristic.
The guy you quoted was in a gakky unit with a severe lack of supervision. I'd like to see the OER and NCOER's of the guys in that unit after all this came to light. You can bet your ass the were reprimanded. Think about what happened to the Abu Gharib crew, the entire CoC got fethed, even if they wern't involved and had absolutely no knowledge.
The guy you quoted was in a gakky unit with a severe lack of supervision. I'd like to see the OER and NCOER's of the guys in that unit after all this came to light. You can bet your ass the were reprimanded. Think about what happened to the Abu Gharib crew, the entire CoC got fethed, even if they wern't involved and had absolutely no knowledge.
It's hard to believe that anyone within or related to the complex didn't know. They were not discrete and one solider even reported it (as is his duty via those geneva conventions) and the report got swept away and he was harassed by others within his unit in unpleasant ways for being a whistle blower.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:As much as soldiers are transformed into instruments of government policy, they are still individuals on some level and still bear their own personal prejudices.
They are no less individuals than anyone else, regardless of the connotations that are included with serving within a military institution. One does not need to stand out to have a personality, the idea that soldiers are mindless... could easily be considered much the same. Shades of gray or something.
If you're wrong, you're wrong, like in the case of Abu Ghraib, but supporting your countrymen serving far, far away and condemning the acts of a few are not mutually exclusive.
They are mutually exclusive in the fact that part of an apple does not constitute the whole. I can easily eat the best apple I have ever had, while at the same time noticing it's faults. Hey, this apple isn't an orange; nor is it a pear; nor is it a pomegranate; worst of all the scar on this apple makes me focus on it. Your statement seems to indicate that no fault can be noticed while the whole is praised. I drew a face the other day and did a good job of it, then I noticed that I had made a mistake, which had no substantial bearing on the fact that I had done a good job overall. You can't expect an imperfect method to produce perfect results.
Killing to stop killing is an imperfect method (noting that no method is perfect, while some can still be better than others), it is barbaric, and should be noted as such. You can attach your opinion to that in whatever way you see fit, noting that it is an opinion in itself. If our ancestors had access to atomic bombs, we would have been royally fethed. Perhaps if our descendants are around to take note, they will regard us as the point in between having little to no control within a limited setting, and having a very noticable amount of control to the point that nuclear options can simply be set aside.
I believe that we are already much more peaceful than we once were. I also believe that whether or not our species lasts a significant amount of time, we will continue on the path towards maintaining a higher level of peace, even if through violent means at first. Even if our history ends in with a gak ton of feth, there will have been a long period in which we required less violence to sustain ourselves.
ShumaGorath wrote:If he's like the rest of the UK presence in Iraq he was sitting in a base in one city. Those are crimes because discipline is a requisite for an armed service to function. He could not be trusted to perform his duty and committed something he knew was a crime and something he signed up to do. This was not forced on him. He is not a victim.
I am not informed as to the the actual nature of a soldiers contract (per specific countries) and it would be great to see what 'he signed up to do'. No artificial conflict intended, just interested in the actual documentation. I would offer my opinion on this but it doesn't seem all that important.
A soldier is required by law to refuse and report orders that are deemed illegal or war crimes by the geneva conventions as well as several other treaties. You are using hyperbole to make him out to be better then he is.
I don't personally agree that a deserter can be considered a war hero in most situations but on admiration alone I would agree with the general sentiment. A good soldier is not necessarily a good person, nor is a good person necessarily a good soldier. In all, I would agree with you entirely, provided a pinch of salt or two.
For example, did he interrogate somebody and beat on him? I believe it.
But the parts about millions of people dying, and deliberate attacks on civillian infrastructure? Not so much.
I think it's unfortunate that soldiers were put in positions like these that they were not trained or prepared for, but I also think we already knew this went on. Abu Ghraib, etc. etc.
I think it's too bad this guy has tried to make such grand, sweeping commentary on the war. He has a story to tell, and then he went beyond that and tried to make it more than it is.
Also, FWIW, somebody who refuses to return to their unit isn't a "traitor" they're a "deserter," which has been harshly punished in the past, but I would say it's a lesser crime than treason by far.
I'm not pasting the entire listing, but Online Legal Dictionary states:
Treason is the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.
The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.
And since it was brought up, here is Article III, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Dissent being enough to be considered traitorous was a concern when the document was written, so they narrowly defined it so that just voicing an unpopular or position that was contrary to the governments wasn't considered a treasonous act. Adams would back pedal a bit on that with the Alien and Sedition Acts but that got straightened out eventually.
The word "enemy" in Article III, section 3 is a bit vague nowadays. As that soldier in his speech pointed out, bombing the water supply and subsequently causing the deaths of thousands of children, or sanctions to starve them into submission are hardly attacking an "enemy" and in my opinion do seem more like terrorism. It isn't "giving them aid and comfort" to speak out against a war. Now helping out an Iraqi Soldier during the First Gulf war with aid and comfort, or giving an insurgent a map of an army base may be treasonous, but speaking out against other elements of the war, or just war in general isn't really the same kind of "aid and comfort", it isn't treason. Whether you agree with him or not, he was stating his feelings on the matter, a right we all supposedly have, he wasn't directly giving them aid or comfort, he was making the public aware of the way some soldiers really view what they are doing. Questioning if it's worth it to be at war in the first place. If anything that is doing his country a service, because nobody really wants to be having a war except those that profiteer from it.
No wars mean no money for Cheney and his cronies. It's a bit late for that though though. Thanks a lot Bush (either one will do). Thanks a lot Haliburton, Blackwater, and so on.
Does trying to make people believe my opinion make me treasonous? No. Does it aid the enemy to want to stop a war, sure, in the same indirect way it aids our own people, by helping to stop a war that the real people on both sides really have no desire to be in.
Guitardian wrote:The word "enemy" in Article III, section 3 is a bit vague nowadays. As that soldier in his speech pointed out, bombing the water supply and subsequently causing the deaths of thousands of children, or sanctions to starve them into submission are hardly attacking an "enemy" and in my opinion do seem more like terrorism. It isn't "giving them aid and comfort" to speak out against a war. Now helping out an Iraqi Soldier during the First Gulf war with aid and comfort, or giving an insurgent a map of an army base may be treasonous, but speaking out against other elements of the war, or just war in general isn't really the same kind of "aid and comfort", it isn't treason. Whether you agree with him or not, he was stating his feelings on the matter, a right we all supposedly have, he wasn't directly giving them aid or comfort, he was making the public aware of the way some soldiers really view what they are doing. Questioning if it's worth it to be at war in the first place. If anything that is doing his country a service, because nobody really wants to be having a war except those that profiteer from it.
No wars mean no money for Cheney and his cronies. It's a bit late for that though though. Thanks a lot Bush (either one will do). Thanks a lot Haliburton, Blackwater, and so on.
I guess you missed the Pentagon giving Halliburton a 500 million dollar no-bid contract earlier this year?
The issue with the word 'enemy' is that it was chosen when enemies were only anticipated to be other states. In the modern world all sensible states are allies against their malcontents.
You can see a similar trend towards the weakening of sovereignty in the desire to revise the meaning of 'imminent'.
How do we know civilian casualties are civilian? This is the problem with fighting an enemy that does not wear uniforms and uses gorilla tactics. Take the gun off a dead guy and he's a civilian.
I'm pretty militaristic when we have to be. I'm also a libertarian. I'm not sure we should have ever gone to the gulf in the first place and I mean the first one that started this mess. I'm sure I'll get flack for this but I think Kuwait was asking for trouble by slant drilling Iraqi oil while demanding loan payments for the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait was a major benefactor from.
But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done. These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.
As far as War reporting. I wonder how different world war 2 would have turned out if every act was reported. I'm pretty sure U.S. Marines were committing what would be considered war crimes when they were fighting the Japanese.
It's war, its not patty cake. It should be mean it should be scary, it should be frightening. War will never be so brutal that leaders don't do it, but maybe they will consider their actions before war starts a little more.
Andrew1975 wrote:How do we know civilian casualties are civilian? This is the problem with fighting an enemy that does not wear uniforms and uses gorilla tactics. Take the gun off a dead guy and he's a civilian.
Besides meaning 'guerrilla warfare', you're right.
I'm pretty militaristic when we have to be. I'm also a libertarian. I'm not sure we should have ever gone to the gulf in the first place and I mean the first one that started this mess. I'm sure I'll get flack for this but I think Kuwait was asking for trouble by slant drilling Iraqi oil while demanding loan payments for the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait was a major benefactor from.
But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done. These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.
I am not sure that the war in the middle east is actually over resources, as it appears to have a whole lot more to do with power in general. Your talk of limited war strikes me as a bit odd, considering the amount of investment that has actually gone into this war. What you are actually saying appears to have a lot to do with dropping a nuke and just being done with it. The amount of ordinance that was dropped in Iraq was a bit mind boggling.
U.S. warplanes unleashed one of the most intense airstrikes of the Iraq war Thursday, dropping 40,000 pounds of explosives in a thunderous 10-minute onslaught on suspected al Qaeda in Iraq safe havens in Sunni farmlands south of Baghdad.
That is roughly 3x as much as I could poop in a lifetime. That is a serious fact.
Andrew1975 wrote:As far as War reporting. I wonder how different world war 2 would have turned out if every act was reported. I'm pretty sure U.S. Marines were committing what would be considered war crimes when they were fighting the Japanese.
No war is the same and cultures have changed significantly over time. I doubt there will ever be a way to understand all of the differences between any given wars, but there are certainly striking differences between most of them as it is. Perhaps the Vietnam war was over-reported and we just don't hear about all the atrocities that have occurred in other wars. As far as I remember, there are plenty of accounts of atrocities committed in WW2 outside of the holocaust.
I am also sure that there were crimes committed against U.S. marines by the Japanese during WW2.
Back on topic, there's no doubt that dirty stuff has been done by western troops and agencies during the GWoT.
That does not mean every soldier's allegations are true, however they should not be dismissed as traitorous, since that allows unscrupulous authorities to cover up evidence of real crimes.
As for the idea that we are in a war in Iraq and can justify killing civilians because they might be guerilla fighters, I reject it utterly.
Indiscriminate killing is the hallmark of the terrorist movements we are fighting against. If we do the same, we are different from them only by having smarter uniforms and heavier weapons.
Andrew1975 wrote:
But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done.
Is that Selective Service card burning a hole in your pocket?
Andrew1975 wrote:
These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.
I am also sure that there were crimes committed against U.S. marines by the Japanese during WW2.
Oh we all know there were, not just in japan. But according to the press and these "traitors" there is never an excuse for U.S. soldiers to act unprofessionally. They are supposed to be detached, unemotional and fair soldiers. It's unrealistic.
By limited war a mean where we send only a fraction of our forces to a giant country and then tie their hands. We have not even disarmed the general population of Iraq, In a guerrilla war we are letting everybody keep their AK's. If shots are being fired from a building our soldiers are not allowed to just level the building. Why are we following the Geneva convention against terrorists and guerrillas? The convention does not even apply to them as they do not fulfill any of the requirements of the convention.
No we shouldn't just spray and pray, but its a warzone. You drive though a checkpoint or too close to a convoy you should not be surprised when you get shot. Were they civilians, who knows. There are going to be accidents, there are going to be innocents killed. It's a warzone.......get out of there. If a guy has a gun stay away from him. We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.
I think in many ways by fighting too humanly the U.S. is increasing their exposure and time in country, which only increases casualties. Just do it and get it done. Tear the bandaid off don't pull it for ten years.
So no, i can't support these traitors as they pull support from a war and expose the soldiers to unnecessary harm, including making and enforcing idiotic policies that make wars unwinnable.
Andrew1975 wrote:
But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done.
Is that Selective Service card burning a hole in your pocket?
Andrew1975 wrote:
These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.
Why are your feelings relevant?
Never said we should enforce a draft. A professional army is much much more reliable than a conscript one. Just said we should send everything. The U.S. did not send the full might of the U.S. military into Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor did the U.S. use its full capabilities in an unrestricted war since WW2. No I don't mean Nuke use, just no hand tying of tactics and rules. To sum it up. If you are not going to fully commit don't commit at all. Don't waste the resources unless you are serious, don't get into a situation where you are fighting for ten years and exposing your soldiers to situations where these they can kill "civilians" and give the U.S. a bad name.
Where do I say feelings?
Is any of this important?
Are your comments or opinions important?
Andrew1975 wrote:
By limited war a mean where we send only a fraction of our forces to a giant country and then tie their hands. We have not even disarmed the general population of Iraq
A fraction, huh? How many combat personnel does the US possess?
Andrew1975 wrote:
In a guerrilla war we are letting everybody keep their AK's[/u]. If shots are being fired from a building our soldiers are not allowed to just level the building. Why are we following the Geneva convention against terrorists and guerrillas? The convention does not even apply to them as they do not fulfill any of the requirements of the convention.
We're signatories to the Geneva Conventions, even though we do not follow them.
Also, the GCs include non-state actors in a loose fashion. But we are not following their guidelines.
Andrew1975 wrote:
We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.
# Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (maybe)
2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (nope)
3. That of carrying arms openly; (nope)
4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (nope)
But dogma I'm relatively new here I don't want to hijack the thread. So I'll just say yes I think the "Traitors" are traitors. I they are found guilty of leaking privileged military information they should be put on trial for treason and if found guilty the should be shot as traitors. People can protest all they want, but to leak info is being a traitor.
Art. 5 wrote:
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
who are these "such persons" it does not say all persons or all cases and you have given no qualifications. I have qualified who the convention applies to and who is doesn't.
also by violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
Also you are a vet here so i'll follow your lead on hijacking (i don't know if this counts or not honestly). We can always do this on our own thread.
I think diplomacy is a far better way to strive for. The problem with that is that so many factions are, at the top level of decision-makers, just striving for their own faction.
U.S. interests in defending our borders by crashing someone elses and policing them. Corporate interests in profits, political interests in saving face in public, public interest in having it all over with, parental interests in their kid overseas, religious zealousy between the arab states and israel, political pressure to continue to support Israel because if we stop we will be anti-semitic and if we don't stop we will be anti-arab...
List could go on and on... tribal interest between sunni vs. shiite, soldiers interests in questioning their orders and report their brothers-in-arms.
Yeah as Shuma pointed out, a soldier is required to refuse and report any violating order given. But how many do you think actually do that? They are in a foreign land, and their only support is their immediate peers. I don't care what kind of balls they teach you in Marine training, I'm pretty sure that in the immediate moment, your first instinct would be to stick by your battle buddies and do what you're told rather than be the rat in everyone else's eyes.
The number of factions and complexity of different angles involved in all of these special interests with their claims to being "right" for this or that reason, is just an impossible task to juggle. Border disputes between Israel and Palestine, Jewish resentment that they can't build their oh-so-important temple where it used to be. Palestinians pissed off that they got herded off their homes to make a place for the Jews, who get all the backing. Other Arab states pissed off that the west supported this as a slight against their fellow Arabs which is a slight to all of them.
It could be resolved by just destroying Jerusalem and saying "THERE! NOW THERE's NOTHING TO FIGHT OVER SO ALL OF YOU JUST SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!" But... That wouldn't go over well in the world community where many people still take scripture very seriously. Oil, being the next big concern, could be resolved much more easily if religion wasn't in the way complicating things. But imagine if there was no Jerusalem to argue over, no Temple Mount, no Dome of the ROck, nothing sacred there to divide the area. Just oil.
I can't really comprehend the staggering stupidity of people carrying on about a myth that is thousands of years old and turning it into yet another factor in the "how the hell do we make peace in the middle east". Oh yeah. Because people are supertitious and set in their traditions. If you observe one, you insult its enemy. When my brother and me used to fight over a toy as kids my mom would take it and throw it away. We learned not to fight over a toy pretty quickly. Treat them like kids, take away their toy. Just, give them fair warning and a chance, and help, to evacuate. Boom. All gone. No holy land, just a holey land. Now will you kids behave?
Andrew1975 wrote:
also by violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
No, that is the purpose of the "unlawful combatant" category.
Henners91 wrote:Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be... the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:
If he's like the rest of the UK presence in Iraq he was sitting in a base in one city. Those are crimes because discipline is a requisite for an armed service to function. He could not be trusted to perform his duty and committed something he knew was a crime and something he signed up to do. This was not forced on him. He is not a victim.
Wait... Are you talking about Siegfried Sassoon, or the US soldier who wrote the facebook page that Henners linked to? Siegfried Sasoon served in WW1 - I'm pretty sure he didn't serve in the recent Iraq war.
Andrew1975 wrote:
also by violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
No, that is the purpose of the "unlawful combatant" category.
I'm pretty sure the rules of war need to be a bit brought up to speed with modern situations. "unlawful combatant" is about as ludicrous an idea as stoning a man for taking the Lords name in vain these days. When one team doesn't play by the rules, it kind of necessitates the rules being changed as far as what counts as a "combatant". England learned that the hard way after Napoleon and as the U.S. decided to fight on their own terms. Heck I'd be happy if being a combatant in the first place was considered "unlawful". Since that is quite unlikely and put a lot of gun-happy people out of a job, I'll settle for the next best thing: lax the rules enough for people to fight each other as viciously as they want so everyone can kill each other with impunity and feth the morality of who is or is not allowed to be killed, who is or is not allowed to call someone a sandnigger as they throw them out of their home at gunpoint, or feel free to speak their mind about feeling bad about doing so. YEEE HAAAW.
If you don't want to be called on being an donkey-cave don't do donkey-cave things.
We are talking about the actual killing of people, REAL people, not numbers, not enemies... and making rules about it?! You didn't obey the correct rules, and he is dead. If only you had obeyed the rules it would have all been fine, right? Not if you ask his pissed off sons who ten years later will be planting roadside bombs. What rules.
Animal survival instinct is still an important, if not the most important defining thing when people are under threat of death. Nobody being shot at who is armed and in a foreign country would think twice about what laws there are about shooting back. Solution, don't shoot back? HA Yeah I'm sure plenty of adrenalined up nervous 18 yr olds who have been a gun and a good brainwashing for aggression will stop to think about that. The level of aggression I noticed in my brother when he returned from his 8 year tour has still not subsided 4 years after. He takes offense to EVERYTHING he can find. Nowadays its on a conversational level not a physically aggressive level... but he never used to be like that. I have talked to him about it many times, but that feeling of being threatened and not "allowed" to do anything about it contradicts everything in our nature. If I was in an immediate situation where I would have to break the legalities to save my own skin I would question the laws for a microsecond and then save my own skin. I'm pretty sure every human being would do the same. If you are firing an AK at me I'm not going to stop to check your papers, sorry.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That wasn't live on TV watching smartbombs go off via satellite on the nightly news era though.
I'm pretty sure the rules of war need to be a bit brought up to speed with modern situations.
They cover the current given situation. Terrorism and Insurgency are not new concepts. You can find terrorism going all the way back to the 1st Century. Ancient jewish extremists did what Islamic extremists are doing now to the Romans. The Hashshashin engaged in terrorism in the 12th and 13th. Insurgency is just a form of rebellion.
When one team doesn't play by the rules, it kind of necessitates the rules being changed as far as what counts as a "combatant".
No. Noncombatant and Combatant are clearly defined and have existed since the dawn of warfare well before the 1800's. Just because we're using different terms to describe them doesn't make what they are new. What a combatant is is clearly defined; An individual who participates in combat. Noncombatant is clearly defined. It's the exact opposite. There's nothing to change.
Heck I'd be happy if being a combatant in the first place was considered "unlawful".
There is a thing called justifiable homicide, or killing in self defense. The concept of the modern lawful combatant was a extension of this to describe individuals engaged in violent action at their nations request and was agreed upon in international law to protect these individuals from reprisals due to matters beyond their control. Soldiers don't get to pick wars, they just get saddled with them. One is a lawful combatant so long as one engages in lawful conduct, lawful conduct again being something agreed upon in international law that governs war.
You're problem isn't with soldiers or combatants or how international law has classified them it's with war. News flash: Soldiers don't like it either. Nobody really does. Hence, the creation of international laws that govern its conduct.
Since that is quite unlikely and put a lot of gun-happy people out of a job,
Sweeping generalizations about soldiers being gun-happy doesn't help you. Most people don't join the army because they want to tot guns. In fact screening tests during recruitment are meant to phase out such people.
I'll settle for the next best thing: lax the rules enough for people to fight each other as viciously as they want so everyone can kill each other with impunity and feth the morality of who is or is not allowed to be killed, who is or is not allowed to call someone a sandnigger as they throw them out of their home at gunpoint, or feel free to speak their mind about feeling bad about doing so. YEEE HAAAW.
You watch too many action movies I think.
If you don't want to be called on being an donkey-cave don't do donkey-cave things.
I can't speak to the UK military, but I think in the case of the US military that most of the "darkness" originates not in the soldiers, but the citizenry. In regards to Iraq, we have a case of a bunch of chickenhawks supported by warmongers who willfully turn a blind eye to the immorality of the war. Do US soldiers engage in behavior that is despicable? Certainly, and its no surprise: the human mind isn't meant to engage in the long-term cognitive dissonance that immoral and unjust war creates, and the violence that soldiers must engage is corruptive. This is why those who really support our troops insist they not be used frivolously and to poor ends. Our soldiers volunteer out of idealism, and our leaders need to have that in the forefront of their mind when considering military action.
But I strongly suspect that most of the real horror stories coming out of Iraq have more to do with corruption in the Iraq Army and the legions of poorly-trained foreign mercenaries we have fighting under our flag.
Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
No part of that paragraph actually represents how the world works or worked previously.
Really? The idea that a military need not be a standing force didn't "represent how the world worked previously"? You're saying this about an era where standing European armies were a relatively new phenomenon; armies were raised when they were needed (at a considerable cost) and disbanded when they weren't... The US operated on a similar principle after its birth.
LordofHats wrote:
Henners91 wrote:I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable.
This is not unique to the last half century. It's true of civilizations throughout history. It isn't limited to military service. Many societies and groups have viewed public service as very respectable.
My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.
You don't lose any constitutionally protected rights in the US Military. You're rights may be restricted by the nature of military service but you don't lose them. This is a myth perpetuated by people who've never read the code of conduct.
What you say about Sassoon is the great example of this: Here was a man who saw the fighting of WWI for the slaughter it was, who believed the war was being waged incompetently, a view I'm sure that most modern observers with hindsight would support: And yet you say he should've swung from a gallows. I believe he was fully aware of the gravity of what he was doing but realised that the slaughter of WWI was a worthy cause to try stop.
Desertion is desertion. Good intentions don't factor into a matter of law. Either it was broken or it wasn't. When you start making exceptions because "he did it for a good reason" the entire concept of law and justice loses its purpose and system loses credibility.
Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be...
Yes. I can see how a soldier is not a risk at all. After all, President Obama WILL jump in front of poor Private Ricky and take that bullet for him. The Government doesn't protect soldiers in the way this statement seems to suggest. Quite the opposite actually.
the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:
I can understand where you're coming from. But most deserters don't desert because they think something horrible is happening. They desert to save their own butts.
Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.
Not every soldier commits war crimes. What immoral actions?
Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled:
Less to do with the threat of a military to democracy, which a military is not inherently threatening to a democracy, and more to do with fear of big government. The first 150 years of US history were heavily influenced by fears of the big mean government. Not the military in particular.
I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
Up until WWII-onwards, and after the Articles of Confederation, the US Military was about the same as any other. It was smaller than most but back then the US was somewhat isolationist and had little interest in events beyond it's boarders. So long as the world left American alone, America didn't really care. This changed with Manifest Destiny and post Civil War America. The US followed world suit in the rise of nationalism. Nothing really all that different about it.
About public service: You should've seen the looks I got down the pub from the older men when I said I wanted to be a civil servant
About rights: Does a serviceman have the right to refuse to allow himself to be deployed into a conflict? Of course I would say signing up whilst a conflict is raging is a conscious decision to enter it, but let's say you're in the army in peace time and you find a war morally reprehensible? An invasion of a sovereign country to replace a democratically-elected government for example... If you can tell me that a soldier can lay down his arms and not face prosecution then you'll sink my argument dead in the water.
Sassoon violated the law, yes, he knew there were consequences... I haven't suggested that the military's laws can be conceivably changed, that's probably not possible... But I still think one can consider those that consider a situation grave enough to warrant "facing the music" heroes, no?
I wasn't talking about soldiers when I referred to Arendt: She made those remarks about Mossad going after Nazis and Nazi-sympathisers: Pretty minimal risk. It's an example.
What you say about deserters... granted, and I shan't respect a simple coward... if he makes a cock and bull story about war crimes I might fall for it, but I'm not going to blanketly suspect every conscientious soldier.
By men who persist in immoral actions, I refer to those who are aware of war crimes/are involved in them and do nothing, as opposed to a deserter.
In regards to Iraq, we have a case of a bunch of chickenhawks supported by warmongers who willfully turn a blind eye to the immorality of the war.
Immorality of the war is to blame? I suggest studying some more history. Whether or not a war is moral or immoral cannot be connected to whether or not "darkness" takes place. All wars are dark. It's in its very nature.
Do US soldiers engage in behavior that is despicable? Certainly, and its no surprise: the human mind isn't meant to engage in the long-term cognitive dissonance that war creates
Fixed that for you.
Gailbraithe wrote:the legions of poorly-trained foreign mercenaries we have fighting under our flag.
Where do people get this kind of information The US government doesn't hire mercenaries. Mercenaries in fact are not lawful combatants under International Law, hence why we don't hire them.
While similar, PMC's and Mercenaries are not the same thing despite all the talk that they are. Most PMC's are made up of ex-military. Most PMC's hired by the US, are Americans. They usually have more experience and better training than general troops. They DO NOT participate in combat operations. PMC's are a grey area in terms of what is and is not lawful, but there are things they just don't do.
Does a serviceman have the right to refuse to allow himself to be deployed into a conflict?
It's called not joining the Army. What did you think you were going to do? Party with ladies who love a man in uniform and sit on your butt for your entire service?
Of course I would say signing up whilst a conflict is raging is a conscious decision to enter it, but let's say you're in the army in peace time and you find a war morally reprehensible?
It's called don't join the army. Once you've joined you're held by contract. You can't lawfully breach a contract unless the contract itself is unlawful. The contracts that hold a soldier to service are not unlawful.
Why would you be a soldier in peace time and find a war morally reprehensible? It's peace time what war? The war of another nation? Nothing in the code of conduct says you can't protest another nations war, or even your own nation's war. Active duty personnel can legally protest the War in Iraq so long as they do not do so in uniform and do not act as an agent of the armed forces while doing it.
An invasion of a sovereign country to replace a democratically-elected government for example... If you can tell me that a soldier can lay down his arms and not face prosecution then you'll sink my argument dead in the water.
You sank your own argument because it makes no sense. A soldier cannot be a soldier and then when it suddenly becomes inconvenient to be one, decide not to be a soldier anymore. It doesn't work that way. You know what is expected going in. You can't sign a piece of paper saying you've been informed of what is expected and then decide that you don't like it anymore when it all goes south and cry "I object."
Sassoon violated the law, yes, he knew there were consequences... I haven't suggested that the military's laws can be conceivably changed, that's probably not possible... But I still think one can consider those that consider a situation grave enough to warrant "facing the music" heroes, no?
There's this thing called discipline. Without it an armed military cannot function effectively. The codes of conduct and the DoMJ exist to enforce discipline.
If you don't like war, DONT join the military. It's that simple. In any job, you don't get to choose in this capacity. You have a job and you are expected to do it. I don't get to refuse to do paper work because I find it morally reprehensible. If I don't do it, I get fired. Soldiers are held to the same standard. They have a job. They refuse and they get a court martial.
I wasn't talking about soldiers when I referred to Arendt: She made those remarks about Mossad going after Nazis and Nazi-sympathisers: Pretty minimal risk. It's an example.
There's a lot of risk. Arendt should read more about Operation Wrath of God, or covert operations n general, if she wants to comment on it. Any number of things can go wrong when handling bombs. I don't see the Israeli government stepping in to pull Agent Joseph out of the way when that bomb blows up in his face because he didn't put it together right.
In regards to Iraq, we have a case of a bunch of chickenhawks supported by warmongers who willfully turn a blind eye to the immorality of the war.
Does a serviceman have the right to refuse to allow himself to be deployed into a conflict?
It's called not joining the Army. What did you think you were going to do? Party with ladies who love a man in uniform and sit on your butt for your entire service?
Literally defend freedom and country? There's no telling what you could be asked to do... the military literally asks you to suspend your choice to say no.
You need to understand that I'm not saying war is wrong by default, merely that soldiers aren't free to withdraw from wars that can't be justified to them.
LordofHats wrote:
Sassoon violated the law, yes, he knew there were consequences... I haven't suggested that the military's laws can be conceivably changed, that's probably not possible... But I still think one can consider those that consider a situation grave enough to warrant "facing the music" heroes, no?
There's this thing called discipline. Without it an armed military cannot function effectively. The codes of conduct and the DoMJ exist to enforce discipline.
If you don't like war, DONT join the military. It's that simple. In any job, you don't get to choose in this capacity. You have a job and you are expected to do it. I don't get to refuse to do paper work because I find it morally reprehensible. If I don't do it, I get fired. Soldiers are held to the same standard. They have a job. They refuse and they get a court martial.
Sassoon didn't "hate war"... he simply hated what he witnessed, a war being incompetently fought with hundreds of thousands of men dying as they were thrown against an impenetrable bulwark.
LordofHats wrote:
I wasn't talking about soldiers when I referred to Arendt: She made those remarks about Mossad going after Nazis and Nazi-sympathisers: Pretty minimal risk. It's an example.
There's a lot of risk. Arendt should read more about Operation Wrath of God, or covert operations n general, if she wants to comment on it. Any number of things can go wrong when handling bombs. I don't see the Israeli government stepping in to pull Agent Joseph out of the way when that bomb blows up in his face because he didn't put it together right.
In the case of Adolf Eichmann it was literally burst into an old man's house and drag him back to Israel...
LordofHats wrote:
Where do people get this kind of information The US government doesn't hire mercenaries. Mercenaries in fact are not lawful combatants under International Law, hence why we don't hire them.
While similar, PMC's and Mercenaries are not the same thing despite all the talk that they are. Most PMC's are made up of ex-military. Most PMC's hired by the US, are Americans. They usually have more experience and better training than general troops. They DO NOT participate in combat operations. PMC's are a grey area in terms of what is and is not lawful, but there are things they just don't do.
In order to be considered a mercenary a combatant must fulfill all the criteria that define combatants as mercenaries. This includes actually taking part in hostilities. As such, PMCs can be thought of as incipient mercenaries in that they would become them upon participation in combat operations.
Of course, many operations that are nominally considered to be noncombat are dubiously categorized, so there is a lot of controversy surrounding the legality of PMCs outside a purely logistical role.
I think I misread the bit with Arendt and how you were using it.
Henners91 wrote:Literally defend freedom and country? There's no telling what you could be asked to do... the military literally asks you to suspend your choice to say no.
Hyperbole isn't an argument. No where do you not have a choice. You CHOOSE to sign that document and join the military. You are not being conscripted. Once you're in, it's like any other job. When you are asked to do your job you can't refuse and expect your boss to say "oh, okay then." Refuse to do your job and there are consequences.
LordofHats wrote:Sassoon didn't "hate war"... he simply hated what he witnessed, a war being incompetently fought with hundreds of thousands of men dying as they were thrown against an impenetrable bulwark.
An improperly run war is not the same thing as an immoral war or action. Sassoon is a horrible example of what you're trying to express. What was he whistle blowing? By your description, he was whistle blowing soldiers dying and incompetence. Those aren't war crimes, nor are they unlawful. There was nothing to whistle blow. He simply refused to serve. That's not deserving of praise in my eyes. Plenty of men probably saw all the same thing he did. Some probably felt the same way. They still served.
Monster Rain wrote:Having been to Iraq and knowing many others that have also gone I think people like this are full of gak and also cowards. Same old tired rhetoric from someone trying to justify his inability to fulfill his Oath.
My two cents.
As another vet, I cannot agree more. Deployment is part of the job. Reach down, grab hold and sack the hell up.
USMC= U signed the motherfarking contract
While I am sure that some conscientious objectors are just covering up cowardice, others are people who truly are standing behind what they believe in, which considering the crap they will take is far from cowardice. Look at Muhammad Ali during the Vietnam. My point being that it is not fair to paint them all with the same brush.
Nor is it fair to consider military service akin to any other job. Many vets are quick to point out that its a unique, and significant commitment to a difficult way of life. It only seems fair to extend that reasoning to the reason behind desertion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: When you are asked to do your job you can't refuse and expect your boss to say "oh, okay then." Refuse to do your job and there are consequences.
However, in most cases, refusing to do your job simply results in being fired. That is not the case regarding military service. Following from that point, it seems disingenuous to suppose that military service features just as much choice as any other occupation. Choice, in the colloquial sense, is generally assumed to be unconstrained, and outside the colloquial sense choice cannot be constrained by anything other than physical properties. The military plainly constrains choice more than other occupations simply by penalizing those who refuse to do their jobs more than those who do the same in other lines of work.
Andrew1975 wrote:No we shouldn't just spray and pray, but its a warzone. You drive though a checkpoint or too close to a convoy you should not be surprised when you get shot. Were they civilians, who knows. There are going to be accidents, there are going to be innocents killed. It's a warzone.......get out of there. If a guy has a gun stay away from him. We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.
I think in many ways by fighting too humanly the U.S. is increasing their exposure and time in country, which only increases casualties. Just do it and get it done. Tear the bandaid off don't pull it for ten years.
You've made the assumption that simply being more brutal would resolve the situation faster. Insurgencies do not work that way. You can't kill every insurgent, because in killing one you don't have one less insurgent, you end up creating two more when his brother, son, best friend or whoever else takes his place.
You defeat an insurgency by maintaining peace as effectively as possible, meanwhile defeating the insurgency by giving powerful stakeholders reasons to move to your side, and by de-legitimising the terrorists through infrastructure development and service provision.
This idea that you if we were willing to be brutal enough we can fix problems just doesn't work.
Andrew1975 wrote:No we shouldn't just spray and pray, but its a warzone. You drive though a checkpoint or too close to a convoy you should not be surprised when you get shot. Were they civilians, who knows. There are going to be accidents, there are going to be innocents killed. It's a warzone.......get out of there. If a guy has a gun stay away from him. We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.
I think in many ways by fighting too humanly the U.S. is increasing their exposure and time in country, which only increases casualties. Just do it and get it done. Tear the bandaid off don't pull it for ten years.
You've made the assumption that simply being more brutal would resolve the situation faster. Insurgencies do not work that way. You can't kill every insurgent, because in killing one you don't have one less insurgent, you end up creating two more when his brother, son, best friend or whoever else takes his place.
You defeat an insurgency by maintaining peace as effectively as possible, meanwhile defeating the insurgency by giving powerful stakeholders reasons to move to your side, and by de-legitimising the terrorists through infrastructure development and service provision.
This idea that you if we were willing to be brutal enough we can fix problems just doesn't work.
Exactly when facing insurgency you have to options kill everyone but you( which is is generally frowned upon) or convince the local populace that it is a better idea to side with you
Guitardian wrote:Animal survival instinct is still an important, if not the most important defining thing when people are under threat of death. Nobody being shot at who is armed and in a foreign country would think twice about what laws there are about shooting back.
The actual experiences of soldiers under fire is different to what you think it is. Look, a soldier has every right to defend himself, indeed it is part of his duty to protect himself and his brothers, but that doesn't mean the absolute use of any and all force.
We give guns to human beings and expect them to use a level of judgement when engaged in combat. It is an extremely difficult job and we cannot always expect them to get it right, but to abandon the ideas of rules of engagement entirely is ridiculous.
The text-book example being the success of the Harkis in the war of Algerian independence when compared to the failure of the rest of the heavy-handed French response.
dogma wrote:However, in most cases, refusing to do your job simply results in being fired. That is not the case regarding military service. Following from that point, it seems disingenuous to suppose that military service features just as much choice as any other occupation. Choice, in the colloquial sense, is generally assumed to be unconstrained, and outside the colloquial sense choice cannot be constrained by anything other than physical properties. The military plainly constrains choice more than other occupations simply by penalizing those who refuse to do their jobs more than those who do the same in other lines of work.
Those who refuse would face court martial. While the official punishment for desertion/dereliction of duty at war time is death, the Military rarely kills it's own troops for desertion today. Usually they just get discharged and forfeit all benefits and lose veteran status. It's the same thing as being fired and losing your pension. Sometimes you can be confined if the case was sever, but this would be a necessity of maintaining discipline given the unique task of a military force.
Choices and freedoms are restricted daily in everyone's life. The military certainly restricts choice by more than a bit, it by no means removes choice. It's plainly stated in enlistment papers. Anyone joining the army has signed a paper to the effect they are aware of certain restrictions on what they can and can't do under military regulation. I don't intend to say its the exact same thing as any other job, but in respect to actually doing your job it is the same. You either do it or you don't. If you don't there are consequences. It's foolish to sign the paper saying you'll do the job and then complain about it once it's become inconvenient and refuse to work while expecting there to be no negative repercussions.
dogma wrote:The text-book example being the success of the Harkis in the war of Algerian independence when compared to the failure of the rest of the heavy-handed French response.
Could you post a link for this? This is genuinely the first time I have heard of the Harkis.
LordofHats wrote:Usually they just get discharged and forfeit all benefits and lose veteran status. It's the same thing as being fired and losing your pension. Sometimes you can be confined if the case was sever, but this would be a necessity of maintaining discipline given the unique task of a military force.
Dishonorable discharges stick with a man, far more than being fired might. Also, the the threat of death changes the game significantly, as you admitted with the word 'unique'.
LordofHats wrote:
...but in respect to actually doing your job it is the same. You either do it or you don't. If you don't there are consequences.
That might include death. I don't know of many Walmarts that threaten their folk with death.
LordofHats wrote:
It's foolish to sign the paper saying you'll do the job and then complain about it once it's become inconvenient and refuse to work while expecting there to be no negative repercussions.
I wouldn't call it foolish. Naive, perhaps, but not foolish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Could you post a link for this? This is genuinely the first time I have heard of the Harkis.
dogma wrote:Dishonorable discharges stick with a man, far more than being fired might. Also, the the threat of death changes the game significantly, as you admitted with the word 'unique'.
Being fired sticks pretty hard too. It sucks when you're fired for sleeping on the job, stealing merchandise, and harassing female coworkers, and then a new potential employer calls your last one to ask how good an employee you were
Granted, a Dishonorable discharge is often treated the same as a criminal record. Again, I'm not saying they're exactly the same. I'm merely pointing out a broad principle that can be applied to any job. Any job holds you to a contract. I've always had to fill one out and there are always restrictions. Military service is simply more restrictive than most jobs, and the contract plainly states that you are expected to serve for a period of time. I honestly don't see the problem. You signed the piece of paper of your own will.
LordofHats wrote:That might include death. I don't know of many Walmarts that threaten their folk with death.
Anyone in the military knows that they don't issue death sentences for desertion anymore. The last time the capital punishment of the US Military was applied was in 2008 when Bush signed off on the execution of a soldier who committed several murders and rape.
Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.
No part of that paragraph actually represents how the world works or worked previously.
Really? The idea that a military need not be a standing force didn't "represent how the world worked previously"? You're saying this about an era where standing European armies were a relatively new phenomenon; armies were raised when they were needed (at a considerable cost) and disbanded when they weren't... The US operated on a similar principle after its birth.
Standing armies have been standard in most European states since the mid 1600s. Britain had a small army because we needed a large navy instead.
Conscription was a phenomenon of the 19th century, begun by the French Revolution and spread
Germany has just announced it is dropping conscription and is the last major European nation to continue with the system, most others have given it up in the past 20 years.
Personally, I applaud anyone who is willing to turn their back on any given situation due purely to their own morals.
Is he a traitor? I'd say not. It's not like he walked away from a fire fight. He found he couldn't handle certain things (either witnessed or asked of him) and did the right thing of remove himself from it.
Exactly when facing insurgency you have to options kill everyone but you( which is is generally frowned upon) or convince the local populace that it is a better idea to side with you
I think that is social studies question. Some people need to be subjugated in order to win their respect and allegiance. Iraq is a culture that does not respect any weakness. After decades under the harsh regime under Saddam the U.S. rules of engagement are a joke in comparison and in many ways have encouraged the insurgents.
Do you really think the English would have ever gotten the allegiance of the Gurkha, by not showing strength? Why can't the U.S. just get weapons out of the hands of everyone there? No more personal weapons for anyone. Put enough boots and technology on the to keep weapons out of the country. If you are caught with weapons it should be open season. If you surrender, trial and execution. Do people really think there was no insurgency in Germany or Japan? Its actually documented.The U.S. disarmed the public, including hunting weapons. Any insurgency was dealt with quickly, brutally and effectively. (yes i know Europe post world war 2 was different, I know a million reasons why it was different. But the tactics worked and have not been used because now war must be humane)
You can either rule thought love or fear. These people knew only the harsh discipline of fear. Anything else is weakness. Love can come later.
Instead the U.S plays patty cake, and we are over there for the better part of a decade. The cost in soldiers, equipment, sanity, and PR had been horrible. You think people would frown upon being brutal and leaving? Well they are not smiling now either. It may appear worse in the beginning but its better for all involved in the end.
Where do you think Iraq/the U.S./the world would be if we just left after Saddam was taken out?
Mr Mystery wrote:Personally, I applaud anyone who is willing to turn their back on any given situation due purely to their own morals.
Is he a traitor? I'd say not. It's not like he walked away from a fire fight. He found he couldn't handle certain things (either witnessed or asked of him) and did the right thing of remove himself from it.
The things he claims to have been witness to were clearly wrong, and as such should have been taken to the Inspector General. I call him a coward and a deserter hiding behind a flimsy excuse, that could have been rectified through other channels, to avoid doing the duties that he volunteered for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
I think that is social studies question. Some people need to be subjugated in order to win their respect and allegiance. Iraq is a culture that does not respect any weakness. After decades under the harsh regime under Saddam the U.S. rules of engagement are a joke in comparison and in many ways have encouraged the insurgents.
Do you really think the English would have ever gotten the allegiance of the Gurkha, by not showing strength? Why can't the U.S. just get weapons out of the hands of everyone there? No more personal weapons for anyone. Put enough boots and technology on the to keep weapons out of the country. If you are caught with weapons it should be open season. If you surrender, trial and execution. Do people really think there was no insurgency in Germany or Japan? Its actually documented.The U.S. disarmed the public, including hunting weapons. Any insurgency was dealt with quickly, brutally and effectively. (yes i know Europe post world war 2 was different, I know a million reasons why it was different. But the tactics worked and have not been used because now war must be humane)
You can either rule thought love or fear. These people knew only the harsh discipline of fear. Anything else is weakness. Love can come later.
The only thing you breed by using such heavy-handed tactics is more insurgents. The only way the U.S. has encouraged insurgents were the loose rules of engagement during OIF I and shortly thereafter. If you're killing people wantonly you're only going to breed resentment, and the insurgents have used this to great effect by causing lots of civilians casualties to U.S. return fire. I find it slightly offensive that you suggest we stoop to the level of a corrupt despot like Saddam Hussein.
You can hardly ever refer to Iraq as having a single culture, they're broken up into several major groups (Sunni, Shia and Kurd) and several minor ones (Chaldean, Assyrian, Yezidi and so forth) that all have different histories, customs and sometimes languages. Different parts of Iraqi society mesh differently with Coalition forces. For example, military personnel can walk around unmolested in the Kurdish provinces in the north, but wouldn't dare to in some neighborhoods of Baghdad.
The reason we just can't out and out disarm them is because they don't want to be disarmed and would never consent to it. The tribal mindset there has them always on guard against rival tribes and they do not want to be caught with their pants down by a rival tribe. U.S. troops were generally openly hostile towards anyone carrying a weapon during the early stages of the occupation, but all that did was breed resentment because we killed a lot of people that just happened to be carrying a weapon and weren't a threat, making enemies where there were none before.
The only way to establish a legitimate rule over there is to have the average Iraqi want that and trust in the system.
LordofHats wrote:Military service is simply more restrictive than most jobs, and the contract plainly states that you are expected to serve for a period of time. I honestly don't see the problem. You signed the piece of paper of your own will.
I didn't say that there is a problem. I said that it disingenuous to imply that the military is like any other job. You seem to agree with me, but you also seem to want to push you analogy so that the deserter in question is thought less of.
LordofHats wrote:
Anyone in the military knows that they don't issue death sentences for desertion anymore. The last time the capital punishment of the US Military was applied was in 2008 when Bush signed off on the execution of a soldier who committed several murders and rape.
Ok this does not belong on Dakka, why because I was there in Iraq on 2 tours and have seen what goes on in the dark rooms and not seen by the public. I can say this guy as a US soldier took an oath as he was taked into the US Army of not doing what he just did, talk about his battle field / unit experiance to the public without the official permission of the US Government is guilty of Treason of other charges. Penalty is 25 yrs imprisionment or death depending on the circumstances. This man says things have been done by his unit, well it seems to me that he....like myself were involved with the CIA or Black Ops and took that very Oath. So anything he says without proper documentation is heresay at the most. Not to say things like this ever happened we say the news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated on TV News. That is something of a need to know basis, why well have you heard what these Iraqi military personel did to the entire Kuwaiti populace? Rape of every mother and child under the age of 12 yrs old, murder of every male 16 yrs or older, stealing of everything of value in the country by these troops. The United States along with many other counties rallied together to stop this madness. And we pushed the Iraqi Army half way back into their own country, and were stopped by are own Politions because of Death Ally. An area were most of the invading Iraqi Army was fleeing Kuiat with their stolen loot. Yes 10,000 Iraqi troops died in a very bad way but they were crushed as thieves and murders. 10 yrs latter we went back into Iraq because a failed attempt by Iraqi civilians to unseat Sudam Hussain for gassing 100,000 of his own people to death with chemical weapons. Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran. It calls for every Muslim/Islamic person to kill the Non-Beleiver....Christians any way thay can and get a great reward in their Heaven....72 Vigrins and live forever happy. Well sorry to burst anyones bubble, this old world religion is out dated and racist to the point. If your not of Islamic blood you must die is their belief, Its the local law there harshly inforced by the government. As evicting families from homes, yes it happens but the US Government does give them money to compensate these families, I have been there and seen the money pass hands. This guy that is saying this stuff in a public forum should be put in jail unless he has proff anything he has stated is true. I as a Vet think he is a coward, because I have lost buddies to sniper, IED's, mortor attacks, missile attacks and just assults by people in Iraq dressed in civilian clothing, that is the truth because the hostiles in Iraq fight a cowardly war that is already over and let the civilians take the blame and punishment of their own actions attacking US/Allied personel. I have even seen a 5 yr old girl walk up to a US marine with a hand grenade and blow herself up because her father told her to and it was good that she take an enemy with her. Its how their old regilgion is and will be unless their eyes become open that death is a choice and its not worth your life to kill yourself to kill an enemy. A lot of work is still going on in Iraq and Afganistan to open the eyes of the people that the fighting thats going on by the the local warlords for power and weapon and drug trade is no longer the way, it will kill to many innocent people. Thw world has no true idea as to what goes on in Iraq the people fear retabution more from the warlords than from the US/Allied forces, as long as politics control the military command this war in Iraq and Afganistain will keep going for 20+ yrs. A money drain for sure, If the US had any intention of ending this war they would invade Pakistain and get Bin Ladin, taking the sting from terrorists everywere. Untill then we have a bypass and nothing really gets done until a strong leader gives the order. If it were up to me I would build up troops in Iraq and Afganistain from all Allied countries and move like in Europe in WW2 town to town city to city and take back these countries with brute force like it should be. Then peace will come, I am so damn tired of people blaming the military....we did not start this conflict....Terrorists did, put the focus back on them and off the Allied leaders Terrorists murdered almost 5,000 people at the Trade Center, Terrorists should be given no quarter and shot were they stand.We is they are willing to murder based on Religion. Enough said, I have proven my point of fighting those who wish to murder on Religious beliefs and why the UnitedStates fights against such things!
LordWynne wrote:Ok this does not belong on Dakka, why because I was there in Iraq on 2 tours and have seen what goes on in the dark rooms and not seen by the public. I can say this guy as a US soldier took an oath as he was taked into the US Army of not doing what he just did, talk about his battle field / unit experiance to the public without the official permission of the US Government is guilty of Treason of other charges. Penalty is 25 yrs imprisionment or death depending on the circumstances. This man says things have been done by his unit, well it seems to me that he....like myself were involved with the CIA or Black Ops and took that very Oath. So anything he says without proper documentation is heresay at the most. Not to say things like this ever happened we say the news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated on TV News. That is something of a need to know basis, why well have you heard what these Iraqi military personel did to the entire Kuwaiti populace? Rape of every mother and child under the age of 12 yrs old, murder of every male 16 yrs or older, stealing of everything of value in the country by these troops. The United States along with many other counties rallied together to stop this madness. And we pushed the Iraqi Army half way back into their own country, and were stopped by are own Politions because of Death Ally. An area were most of the invading Iraqi Army was fleeing Kuiat with their stolen loot. Yes 10,000 Iraqi troops died in a very bad way but they were crushed as thieves and murders. 10 yrs latter we went back into Iraq because a failed attempt by Iraqi civilians to unseat Sudam Hussain for gassing 100,000 of his own people to death with chemical weapons. Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran. It calls for every Muslim/Islamic person to kill the Non-Beleiver....Christians any way thay can and get a great reward in their Heaven....72 Vigrins and live forever happy. Well sorry to burst anyones bubble, this old world religion is out dated and racist to the point. If your not of Islamic blood you must die is their belief, Its the local law there harshly inforced by the government. As evicting families from homes, yes it happens but the US Government does give them money to compensate these families, I have been there and seen the money pass hands. This guy that is saying this stuff in a public forum should be put in jail unless he has proff anything he has stated is true. I as a Vet think he is a coward, because I have lost buddies to sniper, IED's, mortor attacks, missile attacks and just assults by people in Iraq dressed in civilian clothing, that is the truth because the hostiles in Iraq fight a cowardly war that is already over and let the civilians take the blame and punishment of their own actions attacking US/Allied personel. I have even seen a 5 yr old girl walk up to a US marine with a hand grenade and blow herself up because her father told her to and it was good that she take an enemy with her. Its how their old regilgion is and will be unless their eyes become open that death is a choice and its not worth your life to kill yourself to kill an enemy. A lot of work is still going on in Iraq and Afganistan to open the eyes of the people that the fighting thats going on by the the local warlords for power and weapon and drug trade is no longer the way, it will kill to many innocent people. Thw world has no true idea as to what goes on in Iraq the people fear retabution more from the warlords than from the US/Allied forces, as long as politics control the military command this war in Iraq and Afganistain will keep going for 20+ yrs. A money drain for sure, If the US had any intention of ending this war they would invade Pakistain and get Bin Ladin, taking the sting from terrorists everywere. Untill then we have a bypass and nothing really gets done until a strong leader gives the order. If it were up to me I would build up troops in Iraq and Afganistain from all Allied countries and move like in Europe in WW2 town to town city to city and take back these countries with brute force like it should be. Then peace will come, I am so damn tired of people blaming the military....we did not start this conflict....Terrorists did, put the focus back on them and off the Allied leaders Terrorists murdered almost 5,000 people at the Trade Center, Terrorists should be given no quarter and shot were they stand.We is they are willing to murder based on Religion. Enough said, I have proven my point of fighting those who wish to murder on Religious beliefs and why the UnitedStates fights against such things!
dogma wrote:I didn't say that there is a problem. I said that it disingenuous to imply that the military is like any other job. You seem to agree with me, but you also seem to want to push you analogy so that the deserter in question is thought less of.
It's less the deserter in question I'm opposed to and more the idea that deserters are worthy of praise. I don't think they deserve any praise for backing out of service they fully of their own volition agreed to. I don't care why they're refusing. They agreed to military service when they signed up. They should take some responsibility rather than trying to shove it onto others because their personal morality is in conflict. A soldier is responsible for the men and women beside them, not just their own conscience.
The only way to establish a legitimate rule over there is to have the average Iraqi want that and trust in the system.
True, but that has to come in time. If you read my posts I never encouraged the wholesale slaughter of the Iraqi people. Far from it, I think over the past 8 years we have killed more people and destroyed more infrastructure and property because we have not set the rules properly and thus have taken far too long to establish order thus exposing U.S. soldiers and the people of Iraq to this chaos where warriors are reduced to animals. I think it's better to be an A hole for a day than a dictating occupying schmuck for life. It's irresponsible to all involved. It's like a bad boss blaming his employees because he has never set the tone of the office.
As far as not wanting to give up their weapons. F' em. You lost. Give up the weapons or fight with them. If they want to war over who gets to keep weapons, well let them. The U.S. know how to win a stand up war. They will probably always have secret stashes, but at least they will be discreet when bringing them out.
To let them keep the weapons is just encouragement to take pot shot at our soldiers. Why go half assed into a war? Go or don't go. This mess has been irresponsible and has cost every side too much. It has destroyed Iraq as a country, its destroyed U.S. credibility, and so much much more. It's one thing to ask volunteers to to expose themselves to war. It's another thing to expect them to stand up to the demands of this mishandled B.S. way of fighting.
Besides are we really trying to rule there? I know that's some peoples impression, but not mine. We might be trying to set someone else to rule, isn't that usually better handled by the people accustomed to the cultures of their own people to figure out? We are not fighting Americans with American mind sets and sensibilities in Iraq, we are fighting Iraqis and other insurgents from the area that have a completely different mind set.
As far as being offended if we use the tactics of Saddam, I'm not talking about gassing the Kurds. That region(the middle east) is a mess and I personally don't think they are ready for any sort of western government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently.
A good example was the Soviets. As soon as their heavy handed rules disappeared look what happened, whole sale slaughter of millions of people. Sure these conflicts happened during Soviet rule too, they'd just role some tanks into town, kill a few people and tell everyone else to quiet the F down. Heavy handed, brutal..yep...Effective no doubt, saving millions of lives and billions of dollars in the process, and also letting people just get on with their lives. The Soviets didn't even have to do it that often, people knew the consequences of steeping out of line.
By not enforcing law and order we have created an unforgivable state of chaos in a once great country. By not enforcing our will we have shown we do not have the will or ability to end the chaos. When there is chaos there is NO ability to return to day to day life, which is what needs to happen in Iraq. In essence we have taken a country and turned it into a proxy battlefield between the U.S. and insurgents, we have turned Iraq into Palestine a place where the actual inhabitants have little to do with the true conflict, yet have no means to escape it.
War should be a brutal thing and should not be subject to too much civility lest we forget it's cost and enter it too lightly, too often and for too long. All peace starts with war, all civilization starts with subjugation. You can not have the first without the second.
I love our soldiers, they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. Military planners and politicians need to get their heads out of their a@@ses. Soldiers should be soldiers...not policemen.
(someone please tell me if I am hijacking the tread here. I think it's relevant to the discussion, but not right on topic)
LordWynne wrote:Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran.
Believe in the what? 15th Century?
And when did the army start rationing paragraphs?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:That region(the middle east) is a mess and I personally don't think they are ready for any sort of western government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently.
So except for the countries in the region with democracy the region isn't capable of democracy.
As soon as their heavy handed rules disappeared look what happened, whole sale slaughter of millions of people. Sure these conflicts happened during Soviet rule too, they'd just role some tanks into town, kill a few people and tell everyone else to quiet the F down. Heavy handed, brutal..yep...Effective no doubt, saving millions of lives and billions of dollars in the process, and also letting people just get on with their lives. The Soviets didn't even have to do it that often, people knew the consequences of steeping out of line.
I think you'd have to look at Chechnya for an example of Russian tanks driving into town and using maximum force to stop resistance. It really, really didn't save lives or money.
Seriously, overt and disproportionate use of force does not make people too afraid to resist. Humans don't work that way. I get what you're saying about the cost in lives of not having clear authority, but I think you're confusing clear authority with violence. They are not the same thing, and mistaking one for the other produces situations like Chechnya.
Guitardian wrote:Animal survival instinct is still an important, if not the most important defining thing when people are under threat of death. Nobody being shot at who is armed and in a foreign country would think twice about what laws there are about shooting back.
The actual experiences of soldiers under fire is different to what you think it is. Look, a soldier has every right to defend himself, indeed it is part of his duty to protect himself and his brothers, but that doesn't mean the absolute use of any and all force.
We give guns to human beings and expect them to use a level of judgement when engaged in combat. It is an extremely difficult job and we cannot always expect them to get it right, but to abandon the ideas of rules of engagement entirely is ridiculous.
No. If someone is trying to kill me you better believe I will use any and all means to prevent that. There are no rules of engagement when being forced to follow 'rules' means you get dead. Street fights don't obey the rules of boxing they are vicious, desperate, and at-all-costs dirty. Why should I expect a soldier to behave any differently? He is still a human being and he still fears for his own life. I'm not saying fear like coward, I'm saying self preservation overrides following the rules.
Here Lies G.I. Mike.
He followed the rules to the letter.
LordWynne wrote: Ok this does not belong on Dakka, why because I was there in Iraq on 2 tours and have seen what goes on in the dark rooms and not seen by the public. I can say this guy as a US soldier took an oath as he was taked into the US Army of not doing what he just did, talk about his battle field / unit experiance to the public without the official permission of the US Government is guilty of Treason of other charges. Penalty is 25 yrs imprisionment or death depending on the circumstances. This man says things have been done by his unit, well it seems to me that he....like myself were involved with the CIA or Black Ops and took that very Oath. So anything he says without proper documentation is heresay at the most.
Not to say things like this ever happened we say the news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated on TV News. That is something of a need to know basis, why well have you heard what these Iraqi military personel did to the entire Kuwaiti populace? Rape of every mother and child under the age of 12 yrs old, murder of every male 16 yrs or older, stealing of everything of value in the country by these troops. The United States along with many other counties rallied together to stop this madness. And we pushed the Iraqi Army half way back into their own country, and were stopped by are own Politions because of Death Ally. An area were most of the invading Iraqi Army was fleeing Kuiat with their stolen loot. Yes 10,000 Iraqi troops died in a very bad way but they were crushed as thieves and murders. 10 yrs latter we went back into Iraq because a failed attempt by Iraqi civilians to unseat Sudam Hussain for gassing 100,000 of his own people to death with chemical weapons.
Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran. It calls for every Muslim/Islamic person to kill the Non-Beleiver....Christians any way thay can and get a great reward in their Heaven....72 Vigrins and live forever happy. Well sorry to burst anyones bubble, this old world religion is out dated and racist to the point. If your not of Islamic blood you must die is their belief, Its the local law there harshly inforced by the government. As evicting families from homes, yes it happens but the US Government does give them money to compensate these families, I have been there and seen the money pass hands. This guy that is saying this stuff in a public forum should be put in jail unless he has proff anything he has stated is true. I as a Vet think he is a coward, because I have lost buddies to sniper, IED's, mortor attacks, missile attacks and just assults by people in Iraq dressed in civilian clothing, that is the truth because the hostiles in Iraq fight a cowardly war that is already over and let the civilians take the blame and punishment of their own actions attacking US/Allied personel.
I have even seen a 5 yr old girl walk up to a US marine with a hand grenade and blow herself up because her father told her to and it was good that she take an enemy with her. Its how their old regilgion is and will be unless their eyes become open that death is a choice and its not worth your life to kill yourself to kill an enemy. A lot of work is still going on in Iraq and Afganistan to open the eyes of the people that the fighting thats going on by the the local warlords for power and weapon and drug trade is no longer the way, it will kill to many innocent people. Thw world has no true idea as to what goes on in Iraq the people fear retabution more from the warlords than from the US/Allied forces, as long as politics control the military command this war in Iraq and Afganistain will keep going for 20+ yrs. A money drain for sure, If the US had any intention of ending this war they would invade Pakistain and get Bin Ladin, taking the sting from terrorists everywere. Untill then we have a bypass and nothing really gets done until a strong leader gives the order.
If it were up to me I would build up troops in Iraq and Afganistain from all Allied countries and move like in Europe in WW2 town to town city to city and take back these countries with brute force like it should be. Then peace will come, I am so damn tired of people blaming the military....we did not start this conflict....Terrorists did, put the focus back on them and off the Allied leaders Terrorists murdered almost 5,000 people at the Trade Center, Terrorists should be given no quarter and shot were they stand.We is they are willing to murder based on Religion. Enough said, I have proven my point of fighting those who wish to murder on Religious beliefs and why the UnitedStates fights against such things!
*Kool-aid man is not responsible for the content of this post.
A soldier not reporting to his post is dereliction of duty. Regardless of how you feel about the conflict, if you signed up to serve, you'r either obligated to be told where to go or disobey orders and wind up subject to military tribunals and probable Dishonorable Discharge.
This is a really sad situation that soldiers are starting to feel this way.
LordofHats wrote:
It's less the deserter in question I'm opposed to and more the idea that deserters are worthy of praise. I don't think they deserve any praise for backing out of service they fully of their own volition agreed to. I don't care why they're refusing. They agreed to military service when they signed up. They should take some responsibility rather than trying to shove it onto others because their personal morality is in conflict. A soldier is responsible for the men and women beside them, not just their own conscience.
Would you object to a soldier deserting because he refused to torture a prisoner?
dogma wrote:Would you object to a soldier deserting because he refused to torture a prisoner?
Torture is a war crime. A soldier can lawfully ignore the order, and they can report it as a breach of the code of conduct which doesn't allow such orders to be given (Though it certainly does happen). Desertion doesn't solve the problem.
The particular problem for the US in this case is much like you noted with PMC's. Official policy labels certain practices in such a way as to make their classifications as something other than torture questionable. Many techniques and the nature in which they are used by the US would fall into a gray area where people can easily quibble over whether they violate laws. However we don't use soldiers in this capacity. One of the nice fancy loop holes we take advantage of is the use of civilians in the field of interrogation. International law covers them differently from a member of the armed forces.
I think you'd have to look at Chechnya for an example of Russian tanks driving into town and using maximum force to stop resistance. It really, really didn't save lives or money
Who run's Chechnya now? Did the Chechen war last the better part of a decade? Is Chechnya in a better situation than Iraq is right now? The fact that you probably never even heard of places like Chechnya, Georgia or Ossetia until after the fall of the Soviet Union speaks volumes about what I was saying.
Besides that Chechnya is a poor example. Those were Russian tanks, not Soviet tanks. I'd say lets not argue semantics, but at this point the soviet military was already in a weakened state and had allowed the the Chechen rebels to gain control a large amounts of former soviet military equipment, they never expected such resistance and did not plan for it. It's not really the same situation.
However, had the Russians fought with two hands tied behind their backs like the U.S. military does they would still be fighting over the rubble that used to be Chechnya.Instead the Russians fought like Russians....No quarter asked and none given. They now have control of a mostly intact Chechnya. Chechen have go back to day to day life, have jobs and are being productive members of the Russian Federation. So you know what it really really did save lives
The Soviets had a long history of rolling tanks and quelling rebellions and cultural uprisings, Warsaw and Hungary being some of the most famous, but there also documentation of tribal and racial wars that had escalated to the point where the Soviets rolled in there, knocked some heads around and ended the situation in quick order. If you think the violence in Croatia just magically appeared after the fall of the Soviet Union you would be mistaken.
Look how often Russians handle terrorists....they kill them. If a few civilians get hurt in the process than that's the cost of scaring the terrorists to the point that they don't attack you anymore. When this happens you know who the Russian people blame...the terrorists. Not the soldiers that carry out the operation.
I think they handled the recent activity in Ossectia beautifully.
Andrew1975 wrote:That region(the middle east) is a mess and I personally don't think they are ready for any sort of western government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently
.
So except for the countries in the region with democracy the region isn't capable of democracy.
Where did I mention democracy? I never did, but even if I had as of 2010 Israel is the only fully-fledged, free electoral democracy of the Middle East. My examples had nothing to do with Israel,so my point still stands. Nice try though. Please check your facts before you try to contradict mine.
The city is formally under Russian control, but there is still sporadic fighting in the mountains.
Did the Chechen war last the better part of a decade?
It started in 1994 and while the second Chechen war technically in about 2000, but as noted above there is still fighting on-going today. Main army units were only withdrawn in 2009.
Is Chechnya in a better situation than Iraq is right now?
No, it still lacks basic infrastructure. And that was started with a significant portion of the population on-side, a history of control in the region, close cultural ties and a population of only a million. It was many times easier than Iraq. Yet despite that the first war so badly affected the morale of Russian troops fighting there that the Russians gave up, there still isn't complete control, and authority is only maintained through on-going abduction/torture operations.
Besides that Chechnya is a poor example. Those were Russian tanks, not Soviet tanks.
Yes, because as I've said legitimacy is what matters, that people accept that like or not the government is the government that should be there. When that changes you get violence until a new government manages to convince the majority that they're legitimate. Acting with disproportionate force makes a government look less legitimate.
However, had the Russians fought with two hands tied behind their backs like the U.S. military does they would still be fighting over the rubble that used to be Chechnya.Instead the Russians fought like Russians....No quarter asked and none given. They now have control of a mostly intact Chechnya. Chechen have go back to day to day life, have jobs and are being productive members of the Russian Federation. So you know what it really really did save lives
That's a ridiculous view of the situation, simply ridiculous. Have you read anything on Chechnya at all? Anything? It is simply impossible to come to your conclusion above unless you were willing to make things up as you go. Again, Chechnya has a population of around a million, with a heritage of Russian authority, a significant pro-Russian faction, and fighting still continued for almost fifteen years (if you can count it over now), and control is only maintained through continued repression. To say it was an effective way of achieving control of a region is a staggering level of cluelessness.
Look, you can't just decide on a sweeping ideology, read nothing about the world and just declare it all fits your ideology. That's how stupid works. Don't be stupid. Go and actually read about Chechnya. The whole thing was a debacle of gross incompetence that got thousands killed.
Look how often Russians handle terrorists....they kill them. If a few civilians get hurt in the process than that's the cost of scaring the terrorists to the point that they don't attack you anymore. When this happens you know who the Russian people blame...the terrorists. Not the soldiers that carry out the operation.
I think they handled the recent activity in Ossectia beautifully.
You're calling South Ossetia a terrorist operation? The hell?
Where did I mention democracy? I never did, but even if I had as of 2010 Israel is the only fully-fledged, free electoral democracy of the Middle East. My examples had nothing to do with Israel,so my point still stands. Nice try though. Please check your facts before you try to contradict mine.
You said 'Western government', which I took as democracy. Given 'Western Government' is a nonsense, I'm pretty happy with my assumption.
Second of all, Israel as the only democracy in the region is rubbish. Absolute crap needing immediate retraction. Of Israel's 9 million adult residents, 3.5 million are not allowed to vote by virtue of their ethnicity. It's got a poor claim at being a 'fully fledged, free electoral democracy'. Meanwhile Lebanon operates a parliamentary democracy, elected by universal suffrage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:No. If someone is trying to kill me you better believe I will use any and all means to prevent that. There are no rules of engagement when being forced to follow 'rules' means you get dead. Street fights don't obey the rules of boxing they are vicious, desperate, and at-all-costs dirty. Why should I expect a soldier to behave any differently? He is still a human being and he still fears for his own life. I'm not saying fear like coward, I'm saying self preservation overrides following the rules.
Here Lies G.I. Mike.
He followed the rules to the letter.
All I can tell you is that I'm glad we have (for the most part) well trained, disciplined troops exercising proper judgement over their engagements with the enemy, and not you.
Yeah I lived next to a base for a while bud. I'm glad too these 'disciplined' kids I meet in the local bar from time to time when they are out on a night of picking fights are in that position, and not me...
So I second sebsters notion of me being kept well away from signing a piece of paper that says I will follow orders, shoot someone I've never met just because I was told to, or guard a base where they waterboard suspected terrorists, and have orders to just guard my post, then come home head hanging in shame for not saying anything because I was just under orders, hearing the home front call us all heros when really I was just a prison guard with a cooler outfit.
I wouldn't sign a piece of paper to commit myself to such attrocity. If someone is punching you in the face but your boss wont allow you to punch them back, only to block their incessant punching as best you can, you would probably quit your job too and talk gak about it afterwards too.
condescending much?
Point being: soldiers are required to do things that are immoral, cruel, and knowingly signed a piece of paper saying they would follow orders. The soldier is not at fault, the one giving the orders to his gung-ho underlings is at fault. The soldiers are only responsible for the moral decision they made when they signed up in the first place, duped by heroic looking commercials on TV, public 'standard' view of being a hero, maybe a promise of college afterwards, or a false sense of "defending our freedom". If I need to defend my freedom I will learn to run fast and hop fences when faced down by gun toting G.I. Joe in my backyard. Nothing about violence or the threat of it has much to do with freedom as far as I can tell.
I don't need kids over on the other side of the world fighting people I have no interest in, spreading democracy in places where our influence is not wanted or appreciated, "defending our country", to feel free, or protected. I am more worried about domestic problems, or getting mugged by one of my fellow Americans, than I am worried about getting blown up by a terrorist. If you quit poking the bee hive, they will quit trying to sting you. Signing up for the military adds to the poking. So you're welcome, sebster, for my refusal to agree to do horrible things because I was told to. Actually I wouldn't last a day in boot camp because I just don't follow orders I don't agree with. I would be court marshalled or whatever pretty damn quick. So again, you're welcome. I'll go ahead and not sign that piece of paper out of consideration for you, seb.
I did four tours out there Guitardian (two ganners two Iraq)
I hated the fethers, and im an aggressive man, i dont have the Jesus like skill to "turn the other cheek" or accept that they were mind-wiped and indoctrinated as children and not take it personally.
But i never ever hit a prisoner or acted out of the ROE, and nor did anybody else i was aware of, and plenty think like me. I used to take them their food and water, smile grimly if they ever smiled at me or attempted to engage in dialogue and move along.
You ever dont let your personal feelings get in the way of being professional, for whatever reason.
Alot of it is not out of care or conscience, but ego for me personally, i never liked to think of some fat sailors or Pongos (regular army) seeing the RMs ever being anything other than 100% professional, and even though i had loathing and contempt for my enemies, i wouldnt think of not following the rules to the letter.
Its that control and skill that allows me and 99% of the soldiers who served there to remain as righteously disgusted and scornful of the decapitate happy, potbellied, foul smelling savages we fight against!
Henners91 wrote:Really? The idea that a military need not be a standing force didn't "represent how the world worked previously"? You're saying this about an era where standing European armies were a relatively new phenomenon; armies were raised when they were needed (at a considerable cost) and disbanded when they weren't... The US operated on a similar principle after its birth.
We also fought with single shot muskets and bayonets right after the birth of the US. Not having a standing army worked just fine back then when voyages from the US to Europe were measured in weeks and the most complex task a soldier had to master was standing in a line and loading a musket, which most knew how to do anyways. However for the last hundred years things have gotten a tad more complex.
You can cross the Atlantic in a few hours aboard an aircraft of a few days on a ship. A modern assault rifle or pistol requires specialized training in it's use and maintenance that your average civilian just doesn't have and that's about the simplest piece of kit a modern soldier has to deal with. Forget radios, rocket launchers, tanks, helicopters, high performance aircraft, ships, information networks, satellites, etc. Even assuming you could conscript your army overnight, and you can't, there's no way you could train them to even a minimal level of competancy in time for a conflict.
The complexity of a modern military demands that you have a standing army of trained professionals. Suggesting otherwise is a step beyond idiotic and verging on completely braindead.
That's a ridiculous view of the situation, simply ridiculous. Have you read anything on Chechnya at all? Anything? It is simply impossible to come to your conclusion above unless you were willing to make things up as you go. Again, Chechnya has a population of around a million, with a heritage of Russian authority, a significant pro-Russian faction, and fighting still continued for almost fifteen years (if you can count it over now), and control is only maintained through continued repression. To say it was an effective way of achieving control of a region is a staggering level of cluelessness.
Look, you can't just decide on a sweeping ideology, read nothing about the world and just declare it all fits your ideology. That's how stupid works. Don't be stupid. Go and actually read about Chechnya. The whole thing was a debacle of gross incompetence that got thousands killed.
Yes I am well aware of what happened in Chechnya, The first Chechen war lasted 2 years94-96 and ended with a peace treaty although there was still minor terrorist activity in the mountains. The second Chechen war started in 99 with major actions finished in 2000 ofter the taking of Grozny. Since then most Chechen resistance has hidden up in the mountains launching minor attacks here and there (not to mention two well documented attacks outside of Chechnya). Nothing like the almost daily bombings that still happen to this day in Iraq.
In fact the economic situation in Chechnya has improved considerably since 2000. According to the New York Times, major efforts to rebuild Grozny have been made, and improvements in the political situation have led some officials to consider setting up a tourism industry. I think it will be quite some time until you see people even considering vacationing in Iraq.
Never said Occestia was a terrorist attack. I was showing that Russians don't care about public opinion once the bells of war have rung. The west's knee jerk reaction was to blame the Russians for the situation and start rattling sabers and siding with a wack job named Mikheil Saakashvili. (hey lets back the guy that supports genetic cleansing of half a country....GO USA GO USA not bashing the U.S. military but our foreign policy is and has been crap since after WW2. We never should have gotten involved in the first gulf war, which has pretty much triggered this entire fiasco.)
A much better and glaring example more pertinent to your needs would be the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Here is another example of not going all the way in a war. The Soviets sent a fraction of their army, and the worst fraction at that. The forces sent into Afghanistan consisted mainly of reserve forces taken from all over the soviet union consisting of mostly untrained units from the fringes of the empire. It is said that no true Russians fought in Afghanistan, it is an overstatement of the facts but shows the level of commitment made to the war. Also the war was in hand until the U.S. started sending stinger missiles to the Mujaheddin.......GREAT THINKING GUYS!
Where did I mention democracy? I never did, but even if I had as of 2010 Israel is the only fully-fledged, free electoral democracy of the Middle East. My examples had nothing to do with Israel,so my point still stands. Nice try though. Please check your facts before you try to contradict mine.
You said 'Western government', which I took as democracy. Given 'Western Government' is a nonsense, I'm pretty happy with my assumption.
Second of all, Israel as the only democracy in the region is rubbish. Absolute crap needing immediate retraction. Of Israel's 9 million adult residents, 3.5 million are not allowed to vote by virtue of their ethnicity. It's got a poor claim at being a 'fully fledged, free electoral democracy'. Meanwhile Lebanon operates a parliamentary democracy, elected by universal suffrage
I'm glad you are happy with your assumption. It's wrong, but if it makes YOU happy go ahead.
Israel Arab citizens vote and participate in the government along with Jewish citizens, can own and buy land, and are legally protected against discrimination in government services and the work place. They enjoy a far higher standard of living and better health care and educational opportunities than their neighbors in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Arabs can serve in the Israeli army and many do, especially Bedouin and Druze.
That's two countries (one by your count, which does not help your argument) that are run by western style government in the middle east. Both of which are contentious. So I think we can safely say they are the exception that proves the rule. So i'll go back to my idea that the area is just not ready for any form of western style government, ideas or kindnesses.
(hey lets back the guy that supports genetic cleansing of half a country....GO USA GO USA not USA bashing military but our foreign policy is and has been crap since after WW2. We never should have gotten involved in the first gulf war, which has pretty much triggered this entire fiasco.)
Most would more readily blame early power plays with mideastern national governments and the proxy wars between ourselves and the soviet union. The gulf war was a direct result of those actions and our current conflicts have relatively little to do with the gulf conflict.
Never said Occestia was a terrorist attack. I was showing that Russians don't care about public opinion once the bells of war have rung.
Tell that to their financial sector which tanked once foreign investment capitol dried up post conflict. People don't want to invest in an agressive russian state. It's bad business.
A much better and glaring example more pertinent to your needs would be the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Here is another example of not going all the way in a war. The Soviets sent a fraction of their army, and the worst fraction at that. The forces sent into Afghanistan consisted mainly of reserve forces taken from all over the soviet union consisting of mostly untrained units from the fringes of the empire. It is said that no true Russians fought in Afghanistan, it is an overstatement of the facts but shows the level of commitment made to the war.
Yeah, soviet revisionist history is a neat thing. The afghan forces were not backwater troops, they were simply very unsuccessful.
So I think we can safely say they are the exception that proves the rule.
So I think we can safely say they are the exception that proves the rule.
That statement is oxymoronic.
The above statement is oxymoronic......without the oxy
Yes you are correct it is meant to be actually see "An exception that proves the rule" is a commonly used colloquialism. It means to express that one anomaly in a much larger situation proves that it is only an anomaly. But I'm sure you know that.
Most would more readily blame early power plays with mideastern national governments and the proxy wars between ourselves and the soviet union. The gulf war was a direct result of those actions and our current conflicts have relatively little to do with the gulf conflict.
Aren't we talking about the fighting that is currently going on in the gulf. The first gulf war was the kick of for that. No first gulf war...no invasion of Iraq. We never should have bothered with Iraq when they Invaded Kuwait. Kuwait asked for it by instigating financial war against Iraq and steeling their oil by slant drilling. Kuwait made it know that they would "Bankrupt Iraq until all their women were prostitutes". When Saddam asked the U.S. what we thought of his invading Kuwait the United states said "We have no opinion on these matters" NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE
I'm in no way supporting the rape, pillage and plunder of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. But maybe Kuwait shouldn't shouldn't have been poking the bear either. It was really none of our business.
The above statement is oxymoronic......without the oxy
Yes you are correct it is meant to be actually see "An exception that proves the rule" is a commonly used colloquialism.
It's also universally hyperbolic in use.
It means to express that one anomaly in a much larger situation proves that it is only an anomaly. But I'm sure you know that.
Yes. I was stating that it was oxymoronic. Which it most often is. It doesn't help that in your situation it's a factually incorrect hyperbolic op-out statement acknowledging that you were incorrect but still insisting that information that runs counter to your assumptions are irrelevant because your assumptions override reality.
it's a factually incorrect hyperbolic op-out statement acknowledging that you were incorrect but still insisting that information that runs counter to your assumptions are irrelevant because your assumptions override reality
How is it incorrect? Enlighten me ShumaGorath. I've stated my reason that 2 possibly 1 exception to the rule only proves it. An exception is just that, and exception and allows exemption from the main rule What is your stance?
Tell that to their financial sector which tanked once foreign investment capitol dried up post conflict. People don't want to invest in an agressive russian state. It's bad business
Their financial sector has taken hits because of the large amount of corruption in the financial district. Who wants to build in a country where the mafia has such a strong hold your goods may never get to the store.....that is if the mafia hasn't already taken the store and killed all your emplyees! The power of the Russian mafia is quite well documented.
Westerners are afraid of a strong Russian state period, this is again why the knee jerk reaction was to back a Georgian president who supported the systematic genetic cleansing of an entire region and invaded it to do so. Russia told the west to back off and mind it's own F-ing hypocritical business. GO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.
How is it incorrect? Enlighten me ShumaGorath. I've stated my reason that 2 possibly 1 exception to the rule only proves it.
I've gone over this. The statement "Exception that proves the rule" is oxymoronic. Just because it exists in parlance doesn't mean it legitimizes your opinions. An exception can only disprove a "rule" (statement) or be irrelevant to it. By excepting things you do little but broaden and weaken the relevance of the statement that you are trying to prove.
hat is your stance?
The socioeconomics of oil base economies in resource poor regions create an environment where endemic authoritarianism easily takes hold. It has happened in virtually every oil based economy in history. Pretending that the mideast is special or somehow unprepared for democracy because of the foundation of their wealth and the social impact that has visavis governance and human rights is silly. If you want to breed good will and democracy in the mideast engage with them peacefully in trade and politics while ending support for the policies that keep them repressed. Its a pretty simple concept to understand that overt militaristic force against insurgent civilian bodies hasn't worked since roman times. The advent of the bomb has made it too easy to rebel violently with success.
Their financial sector has taken hits because of the large amount of corruption in the financial district. Who wants to build in a country where the mafia has such a strong hold your goods may never get to the store.....that is if the mafia hasn't already taken the store and killed all your emplyees! The power of the Russian mafia is quite well documented.
It was well documented for decades before the georgian invasion, it's nothing new and it's nothing "surprising" to investors.
Westerners are afraid of a strong Russian state period, this is again why the knee jerk reaction was to back a Georgian president who supported the systematic genetic cleansing of an entire region and invaded it to do so.
Actually, investors would love a strong russian state. Strong states are great to invest in. They are safe. There is a difference between a strong state and a foolish and militaristic one. Attacking georgia didn't make russia strong, if anything it proved that it's military is virtually useless (Their soldiers were actually engaging in combat wearing tracksuits and not all of them even had guns). You need to separate the concept of state strength and use of force, they are far from the same thing, especially when you are speaking of economics when they are often times on opposite sides of the table.
Russia told the west to back off and mind it's own F-ing hypocritical business.
No, russia had pleas lodged against it in the UN by many member states, most of which weren't the united states. I think you need to actually develop a sense of current events here.
To be frank, Americans and British have an overstated idea of the amount of democratic freedom in the world because we have been fortunate enough to enjoy such freedoms for centuries.
Looking around Europe, we can see that Germany only became truly democratic after WW1. Spain enjoyed a military dictatorship until the late 1970s. Greece until 1974, Portugal until 1976. Italy was freed from fascist dictatorship in WW2.
South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, Chile, Argentina, Panama, blah blah blah.
The point I want to make is that there isn't some special factor about the Middle East (i.e. Arabs and Muslims) that makes them have nasty dictatorships for government. That form of government is practically normal nearly everywhere.
It's wrong and we should do everything we can to stop it. But that must start from the fact that we are not special, just lucky. All peoples are equally deserving of self-determination and human rights whatever the colour of their skin, their religion or the language they speak.
If you want to breed good will and democracy in the mideast engage with them peacefully in trade and politics while ending support for the policies that keep them repressed
All good points. But the fact remains that the entire region is in no way ready culturally for the acceptance of western Ideas, including our stance on "noble" warfare. They are not ready for it and for the most part don't want it, they are ideologically against it. Nor does they have to be.Why do we have to constantly be sacrificing our people and money in a place for them, when THEY DON"T WANT US. Let them be. I don't think we should have been in the middle east for the last 20 years. (but if you are gonna go then go full blast) Instead of being a force of peace and order in the middle east all we have done is constantly create chaos. The only reason we don't let them slaughter each other is because we want someone to be able to supply us with a steady stream of oil. It's no wonder they don't want anything to do with us.
Personally I can't wait for us to not need their oil so we can give them the finger and leave them alone.
All peoples are equally deserving of self-determination and human rights whatever the colour of their skin, their religion or the language they speak.
Sure no doubt. But while people deserve it they must also earn it. Forcing it on them is no way to get them to accept it. Do we (the west) really have nothing better to do? Don't we have our own problems we need to take care of first before we go pushing this "perfect" society onto everyone else? Look it's not for everyone. There are a lot of problem that come with it. They will accept it if and when they are ready. If they really want and are committed to it then it they can earn it with their own blood and money instead of ours.
All good points. But the fact remains that the entire region is in no way ready culturally for the acceptance of western Ideas, including our stance on "noble" warfare. They are not ready for it and for the most part don't want it, they are ideologically against it.
Who cares, the people that are against it are the ones were killing. We don't have these concepts to look cool to the mideast, we have them because they are the right thing to have.
Why do we have to constantly be sacrificing our people and money in a place for them, when THEY DON"T WANT US.
For many the concept is a proactive anti terrorism campaign to make the west safer from extremist terrorism. Thats certainly the UKs stance at this point. As to whether they want us or not, I think you should explain your basis of thought on that. The Iraqi people wanted reprieve from Sadaam, and now they want reprieve from having their things explode constantly. You act as if we brought democracy alone to these places. In the case of Iraq we destroyed their infrastructure and created a power vacuum because we prosecuted the postwar campaign like idiot children. In the case of afghanistan most of the country wants relief from taliban oppression, however they are a powerful and coercive body that uses significant violence against civilians to get its way. They aren't just going to scream about loving the US instantly. We constantly kill the civilians on accident and the "nation" itself has a deep history of exploitative and hostile foreign militaries coming in and breaking their gak.
Let them be. I don't think we should have been in the middle east for the last 20 years. (but if you are gonna go then go full blast) Instead of being a force of peace and order in the middle east all we have done is constantly create chaos.
So you support the tacit support of extremist and violent groups before 1990, but once the wars start actually becoming pro peace and stability you lose interest. Got it. You should probably go back to reading 40k fiction and leave actual global politics alone. Your views are pretty ridiculous.
The only reason we don't let them slaughter each other is because we want someone to be able to supply us with a steady stream of oil. It's no wonder they don't want anything to do with us.
Yeah, you have no grasp of global politics or economics. We're not fighting in Saudi Arabia and neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were planning to do so at any point either. You also don't have much of a grasp of logic. Why would they want nothing to do with us if we're just "trying to keep them from slaughtering eachother" with "peaceful forces".
Personally I can't wait for us to not need their oil so we can give them the finger and leave them alone.
Yeah, it'll be nice to see the economic models of authoritarian control exercised by mideastern and african regimes have their legs cut out from under them. It'll be a while though.
In the case of Iraq we destroyed their infrastructure and created a power vacuum because we prosecuted the postwar campaign like idiot children.
This is my point. Look don't go if you can't do it right.
Are you under the impression that these terrorists groups were not formed because of our clumsy involvement in the region in the first place.
I don't think we should have been there at least for the last 20 years....maybe not at all.
All we have done is polarized countries and forced them into radical Islam. Look at Iran, it was a relatively progressive state in the 60's and 70's especially for the region. Most people had even taken to wearing western style clothes. Not anymore. We have made these people who were on their way to modernism choose us or them......They are overwhelmingly choosing them. The people who wanted the change have given up and moved to the west now.
Who cares, the people that are against it are the ones were killing. We don't have these concepts to look cool to the mideast, we have them because they are the right thing to have.
Classic self righteous western "Inside every one of them is an American waiting to get out" thinking which gets us into these situations in the first place. I'm sure everyone we are not shooting has a GO U.S.A. t shirt underneath their hijab. Our way is our way. It's not the right way, its just our way and trying to force our ways onto people is getting us killed.
Yeah, you have no grasp of global politics or economics. We're not fighting in Saudi Arabia and neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were planning to do so at any point either. You also don't have much of a grasp of logic. Why would they want nothing to do with us if we're just "trying to keep them from slaughtering eachother" with "peaceful forces".
Because we have done an amazing job with it and only made every aspect of living in the middle east worse.
This is my point. Look don't go if you can't do it right.
Are you under the impression that these terrorists groups were not formed because of our clumsy involvement in the region in the first place.
I don't think we should have been there at least for the last 20 years....maybe not at all.
Most of these groups had their beginnings before 1990. You're pulling the 20 year number out of your hat. Are you 20?
Classic self righteous western "Inside every one of them is an American waiting to get out" thinking which gets us into these situations in the first place.
*Yawn*
I'm sure everyone we are not shooting has a GO U.S.A. t shirt underneath their hijab. Our way is our way. It's not the right way, its just our way and trying to force our ways onto people is getting us killed.
In the case of afghanistan most of the country wants relief from taliban oppression, however they are a powerful and coercive body that uses significant violence against civilians to get its way. They aren't just going to scream about loving the US instantly. We constantly kill the civilians on accident and the "nation" itself has a deep history of exploitative and hostile foreign militaries coming in and breaking their gak.
I don't think you read my post.
Because we have done an amazing job with it and only made every aspect of living in the middle east worse.
Yes, but that wasn't what you said, now was it? Or is this your clever version of soviet revisionist history, as talked of before?
Modquisition on. DAkka Rule #1 applies. Politeness is required. Further posts casting dispersions on other members will be dealt with. Consider this a public warning to all posters on this thread.
Yes, but that wasn't what you said, now was it? Or is this your clever version of soviet revisionist history, as talked of before?
Shurma my point which may have been lost in this is that
1. We shouldn't be there. We have a proven track record of just making things worse.
2. When we go there we should not expect to fight people with western style ideas "noble" of warfare. We should not fight with our hands tied behind our backs and be worried about chickenshit like hurting warlords feelings by asking them for their weapons. THEY ARE WARLORDS FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
3. The reason why we fight with our hands behind our back is to placate some peoples delicate seances of how a war should be prosecuted, which only increases our presence and therefore destroys the place we are trying to help, and also increases our proclivity to make war by somehow making it acceptable.
4. And finally, if your sensibilities to the war preclude you from engaging in it maybe you should not have joined the military. Keep you head down, shut up and leave when your tour is done, you signed up for it. What you don't do is be a traitor, post everything you know including military secrets and privileged information on wikilinks and put our soldiers at risk. That makes you a traitor not a patriot, you should be punished and if your info directly or indirectly gets one soldier killed than you should be shot. See back on topic
By the way Im not 20 not that that has anything to do with it. 1975 was my year of birth hence Andrew 1975. The 20 years is a round convenient number, around the time that U.S. intervention in the middle east really picked up, it's probably more like 30 years if you count carter and Iran. To be more to the point we probably never should have interfered with middle east politics.
2. When we go there we should not expect to fight people with western style ideas "noble" of warfare.
We don't. I don't understand why you think we do.
We should not fight with our hands tied behind our backs and be worried about chickenshit like hurting warlords feelings by asking them for their weapons. THEY ARE WARLORDS FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
This implies directly that you don't actually understand the afghan or Iraq conflicts, nor either rebuilding effort. I don't think we can really have this conversation until you've done research into exactly who and what we are fighting against in both conflicts.
3. The reason why we fight with our hands behind our back is to placate some peoples delicate seances of how a war should be prosecuted, which only increases our presence and therefore destroys the place we are trying to help, and also increases our proclivity to make war by somehow making it acceptable.
Actually, with the exception of rules of war as stated by documents like the geneva conventions most of our groundrules are designed with the specific intent of avoiding a growth in the insurgency in both nations. They are both drawing the lions share of their recruits from disposessed civilians living in and around the warzones, by reducing force utilized against civilian bodies we are reducing their ability to actively recruit from those areas (thus limiting and reducing the scope and capability of the insurgency we are attempting to repress). I think you need to research COIN warfare, or the history of other insurgent conflicts.
4. And finally, if your sensibilities to the war preclude you from engaging in it maybe you should not have joined the military.
What does this have to do with our topic of conversation.
Keep you head down, shut up and leave when your tour is done, you signed up for it. What you don't do is be a traitor, post everything you know including military secrets and privileged information on wikilinks and put our soldiers at risk. That makes you a traitor not a patriot, you should be punished and if your info directly or indirectly gets one soldier killed than you should be shot. See back on topic
Oh. Nothing. This thread wasn't about the wikileaks soldier.
2. When we go there we should not expect to fight people with western style ideas "noble" of warfare.
Noble warfare? No one has practiced "noble" warfare since WWI when the side effects of Chivalry and the concepts of glorious combat finally got put in their grave.
You confuse ROE and International Law with "nobility." There's nothing noble about them. There's actually some pretty harsh truths concerning the treatment of unprivileged combatants. They exist to keep military personnel from crossing the line from soldier to blatant murderer, and to keep warfare from dissolving into blind whole sale slaughter. Both are actually very bad things if you want to make friends.
Do you believe whistle-blower soldiers? What do you think of them? Do they betray the men on the front?
It's pretty on topic. These whistle blowers degrade the entire scope of a military's capabilities
I've already discussed the Geneva convention. It's great when you and your enemy use it. But you don't have to follow it when they don't sign it, when they don't meet the criteria and especially when they don't follow it. But again this is not the only point. Use your fully military potential if and when you go, and don't to play politics.
And as for these groups existing since 1900's well our cousin's across the pond were meddling back then too. Unfortunately we didn't learn from their excursions.
You confuse ROE and International Law with "nobility." There's nothing noble about them. There's actually some pretty harsh truths concerning the treatment of unprivileged combatants. They exist to keep military personnel from crossing the line from soldier to blatant murderer, and to keep warfare from dissolving into blind whole sale slaughter. Both are actually very bad things if you want to make friends.
Maybe I should have used "patty cake" it is a better word than "noble war".
I'm not sure why people seam to think I'm all for the rape and murder of civilians. I've never said this. You will always have civilian casualties, however by caring too much about them you can actually harm them by making them a target.
However when you stop using solid battle techniques like those performed on the Iraqi road of death because it's too devastating and demoralizing. Well F-em, don't want to give up your weapons, F-em. Don't want to stop at a road block F-em. Want medical aid after I blew up your car that was racing towards my check point with a bomb strapped to your chest, your goal was to die, mission accomplished, F-em
That's what I mean.
Again none of this should even happen because it is not our job to force people to accept "truth justice and the American way".
What our job should not be is injecting western ideas with guns.
I'm not sure why people seam to think I'm all for the rape and murder of civilians. I've never said this. You will always have civilian casualties, however by caring too much about them you can actually harm them by making them a target.
If, as you propose, the Russian example be used as a good example you are suggesting the murder of civilians.
It's going to take a generation for us to know exactly how bad the Russians have been in Chechnya, but I suspect it's a lot worse then we think.
So those of us who have looked at that conflict in even a passing manner know you lack even a basic understanding of reality.
LordofHats wrote:
Torture is a war crime. A soldier can lawfully ignore the order, and they can report it as a breach of the code of conduct which doesn't allow such orders to be given (Though it certainly does happen). Desertion doesn't solve the problem.
You didn't answer the question.
LordofHats wrote:
The particular problem for the US in this case is much like you noted with PMC's. Official policy labels certain practices in such a way as to make their classifications as something other than torture questionable. Many techniques and the nature in which they are used by the US would fall into a gray area where people can easily quibble over whether they violate laws. However we don't use soldiers in this capacity. One of the nice fancy loop holes we take advantage of is the use of civilians in the field of interrogation. International law covers them differently from a member of the armed forces.
Ambiguity and I-law go together like Paula Dean and butter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
2. When we go there we should not expect to fight people with western style ideas "noble" of warfare. We should not fight with our hands tied behind our backs and be worried about chickenshit like hurting warlords feelings by asking them for their weapons. THEY ARE WARLORDS FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
They are also people living in country that have significant influence on the state of affairs there. As such, we should absolutely care about what they feel, and what they might do.
Sorry, war is complicated.
Andrew1975 wrote:
3. The reason why we fight with our hands behind our back is to placate some peoples delicate seances of how a war should be prosecuted, which only increases our presence and therefore destroys the place we are trying to help, and also increases our proclivity to make war by somehow making it acceptable.
Are you seriously arguing that less restraint on the use of force would be less detrimental to the physical state of any given nation?
That's mindbogglingly stupid.
Andrew1975 wrote:
To be more to the point we probably never should have interfered with middle east politics.
Not possible. Unless you want to start banning SUVs.
I would think that the answer was implied by the response, that answer being yes I would object. Why should a soldier who is given an illegal order desert? In the classic phrase two wrongs don't make a right.
LordofHats wrote:
I would think that the answer was implied by the response, that answer being yes I would object. Why should a soldier who is given an illegal order desert? In the classic phrase two wrongs don't make a right.
Well, it was until the bit at the end.
Either way, what if our hypothetical deserter was faced with a military bureaucracy that made a habit of endorsing illegal orders?
Shurma we've already had Frazzled come, why do you keep making remarks like this. I say your wrong, try to play by rule 1 or this thread will get shut down.
They are also people living in country that have significant influence on the state of affairs there. As such, we should absolutely care about what they feel, and what they might do.
Sorry, war is complicated.
It doesn't have to be. By letting warlords and even regular civilians keep their weapons this is supposed to make it less complicated?
Are you seriously arguing that less restraint on the use of force would be less detrimental to the physical state of any given nation?
Yes, more resources usually help in situations where being understaffed is a major issue. When you don't even have enough soldiers and equipment to keep Iran from sending a steady supply of weapons and insurgents to your battle field than yes. However when you drag a conflict out for a decade where stuff is exploding every day you are being very detrimental.
If, as you propose, the Russian example be used as a good example you are suggesting the murder of civilians.
It's going to take a generation for us to know exactly how bad the Russians have been in Chechnya, but I suspect it's a lot worse then we think.
So those of us who have looked at that conflict in even a passing manner know you lack even a basic understanding of reality.
I see your point. But it's hard to say who's heads the Russians were knocking around. I think it would be hard to say in any case that they were just shooting at random. I There have been many cases where two ethnic groups were fighting and all the Russians had to do was roll their tanks in and get sides to talk without even firing a shot or killing random civilians. Ossectia is a good example. Russians roll in with overwhelming force, shoot up the Georgian military units and the south Ossecian militia. They didn't go around just randomly shooting. everyone.
I'm not going to claim naivety, like some people do. There are of course stories of Russian conflicts where they shot up whole villages because they were enemy strongholds. Most of these were tribal villages where support for the enemy was endorsed by the village leaders and all people within. Sorry about that, maybe you shouldn't be there mixing in with the enemy army. You hear battle coming maybe you should get out of the way. If your husband is willing to put you and his children basically on the front lines where there are other armed women and children....not my fault if they get hit by a shell, maybe you should not have put them and the village in harms way. If you are providing material support to the enemy, sorry you could have left the village. It sucks....but so does war. Don't fight unless you are willing to pay the consequences.
There are cases in the caucuses where the Russians were called to an area because many of the local villages were being terrorized. They found out which village the terrorists were coming from, ran it over (now the accounts never said who was all killed in the raid, but we can guess, maybe they leveled the place maybe not). The terrorist activity stopped. The rest of the villages got on with their lives. Sucked for that village, but saved the lives of everyone else.
dogma wrote:Either way, what if our hypothetical deserter was faced with a military bureaucracy that made a habit of endorsing illegal orders?
That's when you go whistle blower. I'm not objected to the idea of a whistleblower when there's actually something to whistle blow. A military bureaucracy that violated the rules of war needs to be dealt with but you don't need to desert to do it.
Shurma we've already had Frazzled come, why do you keep making remarks like this. I say your wrong, try to play by rule 1 or this thread will get shut down.
That uhh... That wasn't me bub. You're quoting Dogma there.
I'm not going to claim naivety, like some people do. There are of course stories of Russian conflicts where they shot up whole villages because they were enemy strongholds. Most of these were tribal villages where support for the enemy was endorsed by the village leaders and all people within.
I think other people are saying that you are nieve. At least insofar as logical theory and warfare are concerned together.
opps sorry Shurma my bad. See I can admit when I am wrong.
I think other people are saying that you are nieve. At least insofar as logical theory and warfare are concerned together.
That's fine. But I hope these people are up for another 10 years of quagmire. What I really hope for is they don't have to see their children being turned into cannon fodder because they believe in spreading truth justice and the American way to people that don't want it and have no use for it. All the while the our own infrastructure is failing, we can't afford our houses, we can't afford to watch our borders, and China is coming.
Yeah our excursions into the middle east has been worth it.
No it's ok he put the little Ork thing next to it.
Look I'm willing to listen. Hell I even gave someone the better comparison to Afghanistan which was much better for their argument. I'm not doing this because I know I'm right. I'm doing this because I think I'm right. I don't type to see my own words. Im just sick of the U.S. standing up for other peoples rights, that they don't want, when it costs us our own. Building peoples infrastructure and houses, when ours are falling apart.
I'm not perfect. I have some awful motivations
If the war for Iraq was about oil, I'd be up for it, whats the point of being a superpower if you can't enforce your political will here and there, not ten years of the thing. But it hasn't changed the cost of oil. We have only hurt Iraq's oil production since we got there.
If it was to help an ally that didn't instigate the attack,I'd be up for it. Gotta save our friends.
But to stop terrorism, and to spread democracy. We only incite more terrorism by being there. And people can earn democracy on their own IF they want it.
Andrew1975 wrote:opps sorry Shurma my bad. See I can admit when I am wrong.
I think other people are saying that you are nieve. At least insofar as logical theory and warfare are concerned together.
That's fine. But I hope these people are up for another 10 years of quagmire. What I really hope for is they don't have to see their children being turned into cannon fodder because they believe in spreading truth justice and the American way to people that don't want it and have no use for it. All the while the our own infrastructure is failing, we can't afford our houses, we can't afford to watch our borders, and China is coming.
Yeah our excursions into the middle east has been worth it.
Thats the thing. People aren't really arguing that it's been worth it. They are stating that your reasons for believing that it wasn't are bunk and illogical and that your grasp of the history and reality of the conflicts is tenuous at best. Both appear to be true. People can agree with what you said but disagree with how you found your opinions. It's a basic tenet of political discussion. Being right isn't always all that important, especially in subjects where there is common consensus but an irrelevant overall opinion (it's not like it helps that you think we shouldn't be there. We are.)
it's not like it helps that you think we shouldn't be there. We are.
But if it was handled correctly we wouldn't be there anymore. The soft methods of fighting that you are advocating and these whistle blowers get bent out of shape about only seam to extend wars especially against a hard unforgiving populous that only sees these niceties as weakness. Have these methods ever worked? Limited engagement didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Vietnam, It hasn't worked in Iraq. You don't go with half your army and the half you bring has to fight by making everyone happy. Wanna make everyone happy send the peace corps.
They are stating that your reasons for believing that it wasn't are bunk and illogical and that your grasp of the history and reality of the conflicts is tenuous at best
There is the insulting tone, jeez wonder why I had you confused with dogma? Just say you think I'm wrong an back it up with reason, calling things bunk,illogical and my grasp tenuous is so easy. Coming up with case studies and histories to prove your ideas though seams to be difficult.
Not sure what you mean. I've given my examples of how and where my methodology has worked to great effect and where your have failed. I would have to know my history just to bring these up. Whereas you have given very little proof as to how, when, where or why your tactics appear to be working if they ever have. You bring up a lot of theories. But show me where they have been tested in real world situation successfully, instead of just trying to debunk mine.
All I've heard from anybody is "Oh the humanity" well maybe that's what the average person should say when they see a war. They should know it's better to avoid such things, rather than thinking they are some kind of easy tool to use to spread some ideology that works well for us, but maybe not everybody else.
Not sure what you mean. I've given my examples of how and where my methodology has worked to great effect and where your have failed.
If you did it wasn't in this thread.
I would have to know my history just to bring these up.
No, not really.
Whereas you have given very little proof as to how, when, where or why your tactics appear to be working if they ever have.
German reunification? Postwar Vietnam? Your methods lost us vietnam, mine won us the country.
Limited engagement didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Vietnam, It hasn't worked in Iraq.
We didn't engage in "limited engagements" in either of those wars. Hell, carpet bombing and napalm were still in vogue during vietnam. Are you saying because we didn't nuke the country into a crater we were holding back? We instituted a draft, how the hell were we holding back?
You don't go with half your army and the half you bring has to fight by making everyone happy.
You send half your army and keep the other half around for national defense. Thats... Thats actually what everyone does. It's how it works.
Wanna make everyone happy send the peace corps.
So you don't know what the peace corps does either..?
Andrew1975 wrote:
It doesn't have to be. By letting warlords and even regular civilians keep their weapons this is supposed to make it less complicated?
Do you understand the logistical problems inherent in stripping weapons from a population?
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, more resources usually help in situations where being understaffed is a major issue. When you don't even have enough soldiers and equipment to keep Iran from sending a steady supply of weapons and insurgents to your battle field than yes. However when you drag a conflict out for a decade where stuff is exploding every day you are being very detrimental.
Are you under the impression that the presence of more soldiers will somehow negate free will?
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sucked for that village, but saved the lives of everyone else.
You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
dogma wrote:Either way, what if our hypothetical deserter was faced with a military bureaucracy that made a habit of endorsing illegal orders?
That's when you go whistle blower. I'm not objected to the idea of a whistleblower when there's actually something to whistle blow. A military bureaucracy that violated the rules of war needs to be dealt with but you don't need to desert to do it.
German reunification? Postwar Vietnam? Your methods lost us vietnam, mine won us the country.
We lost Vietnam and you say I don't know my history....not sure what you meant buy that. As for the tactics that cost us Vietnam how about not actually sending armies into north Vietnam or securing the borders with Cambodia or Laos.
German Unification was not an armed conflict as far as I know.I'll have to check the history books on that one. What? The Russians with their brutality however took down the third Reich and had no problem going where they had to to fight.
You send half your army and keep the other half around for national defense. Thats... Thats actually what everyone does. It's how it works
.
Yeah when you play an rts maybe.
It's called a level of commitment. I don't think we had half our army in country during WWI or WWII. Who are we defending ourselves against Mexico? What are half our troops still doing in Europe? Zaving us from ze Germanz, no doubt.
You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.
Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.
Do you understand the logistical problems inherent in stripping weapons from a population?
Do you understand the dire consequences of not disarming a population? It's been done before, many times. Sounds like a logistical problem that might be handled better if there were more boots on the ground. Oh yeah I advocated that. Oh but I forgot they are still at home defending the U.S. against the Mexicans and in europe in case Stalin comes out of his tomb to spread the red menace across Europe.
The Russians with their brutality however took down the third Reich and had no problem going where they had to to fight.
We should act like the Russians in the Eastern War of WWII? Are you sure you know your history? Go check some casualty figures for the Eastern Front, military and civilian. Let me know how that math adds up.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat.
Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?
Andrew1975 wrote:
Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.
The implication that follows from the presence of proportionality is that more could be done, but was not.
If you cannot even keep your terminology consistent, then this is a waste of my time.
Andrew1975 wrote:
dogma wrote:
Do you understand the logistical problems inherent in stripping weapons from a population?
Do you understand the dire consequences of not disarming a population? It's been done before, many times.
No, it actually hasn't. That was the rhetorical point of the question.
Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?
Is a hug a threat where you come from. I'm beginning to see why people have issues here.
No disproportionate response is when Palestinian terrorists shoot rockets into Israel killing a few innocent people(because what else can they do), then Israel sends in fighters and blows up 3 terrorist camps killing hundreds of terrorists. See it's disproportionate because the Palestinian terrorists killed like 3 people and the Israelis used it as an excuse to kill hundreds of terrorists. I have no problem with it. Maybe you should not be lobbing rockets at people.
No, it actually hasn't. That was the rhetorical point of the question.
Really? I'm pretty sure the allies disarmed the germans and the Japanese people to the point where they were even turning in hunting weapons.
Maybe you called it rhetorical because you didn't want an answer that proved you wrong....but here it is anyway.
Oh and when you want a question to be rhetorical you might want to inform someone before they answer it.
We should act like the Russians in the Eastern War of WWII? Are you sure you know your history? Go check some casualty figures for the Eastern Front, military and civilian. Let me know how that math adds up.
Besides the fact that they raped and pillaged across Europe which was unnecessary and not a part of their brutality towards the Germans. The math adds up that they were effective and got the job done. They also made the prospect of war with them so terrifying that the superpowers had to rely on proxy wars just to get their kicks.
Really? I'm pretty sure the allies disarmed the germans and the Japanese people to the point where they were even turning in hunting weapons.
That was voluntary demilitarization of a peaceful civilian group post war. Thats a far cry from demilitarizing a resistive population in a counterinsurgent occupation. In fact they are so dissimilar it shows bad on you for even thinking to think about comparing them.
The math adds up that they were effective and got the job done. They also made the prospect of war with them so terrifying that the superpowers had to rely on proxy wars just to get their kicks.
They also lost something like fifteen men for every german killed and the war devastated their male population.
That was voluntary demilitarization of a peaceful civilian group post war. Thats a far cry from demilitarizing a resistive population in a counterinsurgent occupation. In fact they are so dissimilar it shows bad on you for even thinking to think about comparing them.
Oh yeah right and all of your examples have been spot on. Between you saying we won the Vietnam war and dogma considering a hug a threat...I may just be done with this.
If you find yourself arguing with a fool he is usually doing the same thing. I think i am in this situation.
Oh yeah right and all of your examples have been spot on. Between you saying we won the Vietnam war and dogma considering a hug a threat...I may just be done with this.
I said we lost the vietnam war but won vietnam. That is explicitly what I said. The country is a strong ally now. But we lost the war via use of force.
Read the posts you're going to rant at before ranting. You'll save yourself the indignity of people thinking you can't.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Is a hug a threat where you come from. I'm beginning to see why people have issues here.
Do you know what 'threat' means?
Andrew1975 wrote:
No disproportionate response is when Palestinian terrorists shoot rockets into Israel killing a few innocent people(because what else can they do), then Israel sends in fighters and blows up 3 terrorist camps killing hundreds of terrorists.
That doesn't happen, but ok.
Andrew1975 wrote:
See it's disproportionate because the Palestinian terrorists killed like 3 people and the Israelis used it as an excuse to kill hundreds of terrorists. I have no problem with it. Maybe you should not be lobbing rockets at people.
I'm quite confident that you have no problems with your own fantasies.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Really? I'm pretty sure the allies disarmed the germans and the Japanese people to the point where they were even turning in hunting weapons.
Both were carried out according to internal policies. They were not force, external disarmaments of the sort you're referencing.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe you called it rhetorical because you didn't want an answer that proved you wrong....but here it is anyway.
Oh and when you want a question to be rhetorical you might want to inform someone before they answer it.
I called it rhetorical because it was intended to further a rhetorical argument.
It would be best if you tried to produce correct answers from now on.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Besides the fact that they raped and pillaged across Europe which was unnecessary and not a part of their brutality towards the Germans. The math adds up that they were effective and got the job done. They also made the prospect of war with them so terrifying that the superpowers had to rely on proxy wars just to get their kicks.
So you're basically arguing that we should be better at war, not that we should be more brutal, or less restrained.
Andrew, the Russians that invaded Afgahnistan weren't scrubs. They sent Spetnaz, along with Army and Air Force. The reasons they lost were the reasons we are dealing with now. A war dealing with loose irregulars, militias and tribal leaders. Plus we have these guys hiding out in Pakistan. The only reason we are doing better is the superiority of our technology and vastly superior medical capabilities. The Russians lost 2,556 of their 14,453 dead to disease. I haven't heard about any of our dead being from disease.
Of note: the Mujahadeen in the 10 year conflict lost over 500,000 men killed.
ShumaGorath wrote:
We didn't engage in "limited engagements" in either of those wars. Hell, carpet bombing and napalm were still in vogue during vietnam. Are you saying because we didn't nuke the country into a crater we were holding back? We instituted a draft, how the hell were we holding back?
To be fair many scholars feel we went to piecemeal into Vietnam and didn't hit them hard enough we should have initiated a massive push into N. Vietnam immediately, thats why current american strategy is to start any campaign with overwhelming force, the 'shock and awe' strategy.
The rest of your argument is spot on how ever
Stormrider wrote:Andrew, the Russians that invaded Afgahnistan weren't scrubs. They sent Spetnaz, along with Army and Air Force. The reasons they lost were the reasons we are dealing with now. A war dealing with loose irregulars, militias and tribal leaders. Plus we have these guys hiding out in Pakistan. The only reason we are doing better is the superiority of our technology and vastly superior medical capabilities. The Russians lost 2,556 of their 14,453 dead to disease. I haven't heard about any of our dead being from disease.
Of note: the Mujahadeen in the 10 year conflict lost over 500,000 men killed.
They did send a small contingent of Spetznaz, however...
The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[38] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[39] With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.
They had only over 100,000 troops most of these were reserve units taken from the fringes of the empire such as Turkistan and Kazikatan. A small, and poorly equipped and trained army, less than one tenth the size of Russia's fighting strength at the time.
Soviet generals pleaded for more troops. The head of the army, Nikolai Ogarkov, said the planned ceiling on troops numbers of 115,000 was “reckless” – he wanted five times as many. But he was denied.And just like the US, Russia first entered Afghanistan with a small force and limited aims, and became embroiled in a conflict that spiraled beyond their control.
Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't
LordofHats wrote:I think I misread the bit with Arendt and how you were using it.
Henners91 wrote:Literally defend freedom and country? There's no telling what you could be asked to do... the military literally asks you to suspend your choice to say no.
Hyperbole isn't an argument. No where do you not have a choice. You CHOOSE to sign that document and join the military. You are not being conscripted. Once you're in, it's like any other job. When you are asked to do your job you can't refuse and expect your boss to say "oh, okay then." Refuse to do your job and there are consequences.
LordofHats wrote:Sassoon didn't "hate war"... he simply hated what he witnessed, a war being incompetently fought with hundreds of thousands of men dying as they were thrown against an impenetrable bulwark.
An improperly run war is not the same thing as an immoral war or action. Sassoon is a horrible example of what you're trying to express. What was he whistle blowing? By your description, he was whistle blowing soldiers dying and incompetence. Those aren't war crimes, nor are they unlawful. There was nothing to whistle blow. He simply refused to serve. That's not deserving of praise in my eyes. Plenty of men probably saw all the same thing he did. Some probably felt the same way. They still served.
With another job, you can hand in your notice... It's fair enough to say that you sign the contract and I'd agree with you since I also view the signing of that document willingly as a representation of the fact that people either choose to not consider or willingly disregard some of the moral "qualms" that military service can lead to. But at the end of the day it's regrettable that one can't just realise the mistake one's made and have an institutionalised way to say "game over man, game over." I suppose the counter to that is "tough-cookie, the state's made an investment in you, chum..." But even if you can justify the need to surrender your freedom of choice after having signed that document, it doesn't eliminate the fact that people find themselves in this moral dilemma.
Perhaps this all boils down to the fact that I can't envisage myself ever willingly parting with my right to choose... throw in general leftist hostility toward the military establishment (you see a submarine, I see a lost hospital), and I guess that's why I'm quite firm on this issue.
Stormrider wrote:Andrew, the Russians that invaded Afgahnistan weren't scrubs. They sent Spetnaz, along with Army and Air Force. The reasons they lost were the reasons we are dealing with now. A war dealing with loose irregulars, militias and tribal leaders. Plus we have these guys hiding out in Pakistan. The only reason we are doing better is the superiority of our technology and vastly superior medical capabilities. The Russians lost 2,556 of their 14,453 dead to disease. I haven't heard about any of our dead being from disease.
Of note: the Mujahadeen in the 10 year conflict lost over 500,000 men killed.
They did send a small contingent of Spetznaz, however...
The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[38] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[39] With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.
They had only over 100,000 troops most of these were reserve units taken from the fringes of the empire such as Turkistan and Kazikatan. A small, and poorly equipped army, less than one tenth the size of Russia's fighting strength at the time.
Soviet generals pleaded for more troops. The head of the army, Nikolai Ogarkov, said the planned ceiling on troops numbers of 115,000 was “reckless” – he wanted five times as many. But he was denied.And just like the US, Russia first entered Afghanistan with a small force and limited aims, and became embroiled in a conflict that spiraled beyond their control.
Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't
The contingent of soldiers they sent was a much smaller fraction of their standing military strength than or current strength in the theater.
Our troop strength is 78,430, our current overall active military personell is 1,473,900 with 1,458,500 in reserve. So about 18% of active.
The peak Soviet numbers at the time were around 5 million soldiers. So really it was a miniscule fraction of their army at the time. Much smaller proportionally to the force we sent to Afghanistan.
Soviets: 2% of their standing army.
I would absolutely agree that if you go to war, be overwhelming about it.
Exactly when facing insurgency you have to options kill everyone but you( which is is generally frowned upon) or convince the local populace that it is a better idea to side with you
I think that is social studies question. Some people need to be subjugated in order to win their respect and allegiance. Iraq is a culture that does not respect any weakness. After decades under the harsh regime under Saddam the U.S. rules of engagement are a joke in comparison and in many ways have encouraged the insurgents.
Do you really think the English would have ever gotten the allegiance of the Gurkha, by not showing strength? Why can't the U.S. just get weapons out of the hands of everyone there? No more personal weapons for anyone. Put enough boots and technology on the to keep weapons out of the country. If you are caught with weapons it should be open season. If you surrender, trial and execution. Do people really think there was no insurgency in Germany or Japan? Its actually documented.The U.S. disarmed the public, including hunting weapons. Any insurgency was dealt with quickly, brutally and effectively. (yes i know Europe post world war 2 was different, I know a million reasons why it was different. But the tactics worked and have not been used because now war must be humane)
You can either rule thought love or fear. These people knew only the harsh discipline of fear. Anything else is weakness. Love can come later.
Instead the U.S plays patty cake, and we are over there for the better part of a decade. The cost in soldiers, equipment, sanity, and PR had been horrible. You think people would frown upon being brutal and leaving? Well they are not smiling now either. It may appear worse in the beginning but its better for all involved in the end.
Where do you think Iraq/the U.S./the world would be if we just left after Saddam was taken out?
Wow we have really hijacked this thread
You're really walking a fine-line between half-truth and open-patronisation imho.
If it was so easy to remove weapon caches and stashes... then I'm sure it would have been done in Iraq and in other modern conflicts (I'm thinking Vietnam but I guess one can't cite it what with the fact that there was a whole communist bloc shipping weapons into South Vietnam...). Once you've disarmed the populace how are they going to fight insurgents (who will remain armed); even if you got their caches I'm sure the Iranians would find some way ;>?
When it comes to occupation policy for the now, I just assume that the doves know what they're doing... We need to wait for hindsight before we can make any real judgements, just like how now looking back at 'Nam we can see there was a complete inability to understand Vietnamese culture.
I think a good question to ask would be "what would have happened if we'd scorched the country to gak and then just left?" Hatred, resentment and likely a toppled ally within the next five years...
LordWynne wrote:Ok this does not belong on Dakka, why because I was there in Iraq on 2 tours and have seen what goes on in the dark rooms and not seen by the public. I can say this guy as a US soldier took an oath as he was taked into the US Army of not doing what he just did, talk about his battle field / unit experiance to the public without the official permission of the US Government is guilty of Treason of other charges. Penalty is 25 yrs imprisionment or death depending on the circumstances. This man says things have been done by his unit, well it seems to me that he....like myself were involved with the CIA or Black Ops and took that very Oath. So anything he says without proper documentation is heresay at the most. Not to say things like this ever happened we say the news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated on TV News. That is something of a need to know basis, why well have you heard what these Iraqi military personel did to the entire Kuwaiti populace? Rape of every mother and child under the age of 12 yrs old, murder of every male 16 yrs or older, stealing of everything of value in the country by these troops. The United States along with many other counties rallied together to stop this madness. And we pushed the Iraqi Army half way back into their own country, and were stopped by are own Politions because of Death Ally. An area were most of the invading Iraqi Army was fleeing Kuiat with their stolen loot. Yes 10,000 Iraqi troops died in a very bad way but they were crushed as thieves and murders. 10 yrs latter we went back into Iraq because a failed attempt by Iraqi civilians to unseat Sudam Hussain for gassing 100,000 of his own people to death with chemical weapons. Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran. It calls for every Muslim/Islamic person to kill the Non-Beleiver....Christians any way thay can and get a great reward in their Heaven....72 Vigrins and live forever happy. Well sorry to burst anyones bubble, this old world religion is out dated and racist to the point. If your not of Islamic blood you must die is their belief, Its the local law there harshly inforced by the government. As evicting families from homes, yes it happens but the US Government does give them money to compensate these families, I have been there and seen the money pass hands. This guy that is saying this stuff in a public forum should be put in jail unless he has proff anything he has stated is true. I as a Vet think he is a coward, because I have lost buddies to sniper, IED's, mortor attacks, missile attacks and just assults by people in Iraq dressed in civilian clothing, that is the truth because the hostiles in Iraq fight a cowardly war that is already over and let the civilians take the blame and punishment of their own actions attacking US/Allied personel. I have even seen a 5 yr old girl walk up to a US marine with a hand grenade and blow herself up because her father told her to and it was good that she take an enemy with her. Its how their old regilgion is and will be unless their eyes become open that death is a choice and its not worth your life to kill yourself to kill an enemy. A lot of work is still going on in Iraq and Afganistan to open the eyes of the people that the fighting thats going on by the the local warlords for power and weapon and drug trade is no longer the way, it will kill to many innocent people. Thw world has no true idea as to what goes on in Iraq the people fear retabution more from the warlords than from the US/Allied forces, as long as politics control the military command this war in Iraq and Afganistain will keep going for 20+ yrs. A money drain for sure, If the US had any intention of ending this war they would invade Pakistain and get Bin Ladin, taking the sting from terrorists everywere. Untill then we have a bypass and nothing really gets done until a strong leader gives the order. If it were up to me I would build up troops in Iraq and Afganistain from all Allied countries and move like in Europe in WW2 town to town city to city and take back these countries with brute force like it should be. Then peace will come, I am so damn tired of people blaming the military....we did not start this conflict....Terrorists did, put the focus back on them and off the Allied leaders Terrorists murdered almost 5,000 people at the Trade Center, Terrorists should be given no quarter and shot were they stand.We is they are willing to murder based on Religion. Enough said, I have proven my point of fighting those who wish to murder on Religious beliefs and why the UnitedStates fights against such things!
...
Wonder if you'd say the same thing about the Jews and their belief that they're the chosen race of God?
My point's not to start any fights but really, I think religion makews an awesome excuse for people... ultimately it is our material concerns that motivate us toward violence.
I also highly doubt your awareness of the situation if you're suggesting "invading" a US-ally...
Frankly, if they are guilty of hatred as Muslims, you're just as guilty for saying it's so... indiscriminate tarring can go both-ways, y'know.
I wonder, how many Muslims do Americans even tend to meet? We're quite shoulder-to-shoulder over here in places and I really have no complaints... I'll be living in a Muslim neighbourhood next year.
Our troop strength is 78,430, our current overall active military personell is 1,473,900 with 1,458,500 in reserve. So about 18% of active.
They are not all soldiers though. The U.S. army is about 80% support,(yes I'm exaggerating but not my that much). But still we are far from having a massive commitment to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Besides as noted before we have to keep half back to defend against the Mexican and Canadian armies, and another third to stop Stalin or Hitler (or both) from coming out of their coffins and taking Europe.
I think you'd have to look at Chechnya for an example of Russian tanks driving into town and using maximum force to stop resistance. It really, really didn't save lives or money
Who run's Chechnya now? Did the Chechen war last the better part of a decade? Is Chechnya in a better situation than Iraq is right now? The fact that you probably never even heard of places like Chechnya, Georgia or Ossetia until after the fall of the Soviet Union speaks volumes about what I was saying.
Would you not attribute the lack of dissidence in Soviet Chechnya as being due to ideological reasons? Ethnic tensions only really surfaced in the USSR after the fall... I mean, here was a nation that technically guaranteed 100% employment and encouraged the previously repressed cultures of the Russian Empire to be expressed locally, coupled with the suppression of religion and good ol' curfew, that sounds like a harmonious society to me.
Also, @Andrew1975, sorry I can't find the quote... but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it" (ironically, I imagine in that kind of situation a lot of people don't want to follow through with those actions but go along with it... because they see their likely-equally upset comrades doing the same)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.
Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.
Israeli invasion of Lebanon...
80 civilians killed in a year by disparate mortar attacks... and then THAT happened...
I can remember being quite upset... if you need a caste study of where threat can quite clearly be "OTT", that's it.
Our troop strength is 78,430, our current overall active military personell is 1,473,900 with 1,458,500 in reserve. So about 18% of active.
They are not all soldiers though. The U.S. army is about 80% support,(yes I'm exaggerating but not my that much). But still we are far from having a massive commitment to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Besides as noted before we have to keep half back to defend against the Mexican and Canadian armies, and another third to stop Stalin or Hitler (or both) from coming out of their coffins and taking Europe.
Yes, the Canadians are sharpening their ice skates, preparing to slit our throats in our sleep.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[38] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[39] With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.
Excellent copypasta. Perhaps you should start deleting citations before repeating that gesture.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Soviet generals pleaded for more troops. The head of the army, Nikolai Ogarkov, said the planned ceiling on troops numbers of 115,000 was “reckless” – he wanted five times as many. But he was denied.And just like the US, Russia first entered Afghanistan with a small force and limited aims, and became embroiled in a conflict that spiraled beyond their control.
Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't
!00,000 isn't a small force. Regime change is not a limited aim.
Your point is nonsense. There are many problems with the Afghan conflict, but insufficient manpower is not one of them.
Would you not attribute the lack of dissidence in Soviet Chechnya as being due to ideological reasons? Ethnic tensions only really surfaced in the USSR after the fall... I mean, here was a nation that technically guaranteed 100% employment and encouraged the previously repressed cultures of the Russian Empire to be expressed locally, coupled with the suppression of religion and good ol' curfew, that sounds like a harmonious society to me.
This is western propaganda at it's best. There was plenty of ethnic hate in the Soviet Union, always was. They just feared the red army more but there were plenty of uprisings. People in the soviet union were free on a different level than we understand. When I was there for a year I could do basically whatever I wanted as long as I didn't hurt anyone. Here in the good old U.S.A. I can't even have a bonfire at the beach or walk down the street with a beer in my hand. Don't fall for the cold war rhetoric about the average soviets life, it was much better than you think. There are so many beautiful churches, synagogues and mosques in Russia you'd be amazed.
but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it"
I'm sure there have, there are many types of war crimes. Raping is a big no no. But any mistreatment of known terrorists I have no issue with. These peoples goal is to kill women and children, I don't believe anything is too harsh for them. Just shut the door and turn off the camera when you are doing it. It's also one thing to go through military channels with your problems...It's another to go to CNN
With another job, you can hand in your notice... It's fair enough to say that you sign the contract and I'd agree with you since I also view the signing of that document willingly as a representation of the fact that people either choose to not consider or willingly disregard some of the moral "qualms" that military service can lead to. But at the end of the day it's regrettable that one can't just realise the mistake one's made and have an institutionalised way to say "game over man, game over." I suppose the counter to that is "tough-cookie, the state's made an investment in you, chum..." But even if you can justify the need to surrender your freedom of choice after having signed that document, it doesn't eliminate the fact that people find themselves in this moral dilemma.
It isn't a perfect system, but we don't live in a perfect world. People don't always get what they want and sometimes we find ourselves in positions we absolutely hate as a result of our own actions or the actions of others. To me, it's a matter or personal responsibility. Regardless of mitigating factors the choice was made on their part and they must now live with the decision. I view desertion as an abandonment of responsibility for the choice that was made and an betrayal of trust and responsibility handed to someone upon joining the military, which is why I dislike it and don't see anything praiseworthy of the action regardless of context.
That said I do understand why a soldier may desert. It's not hard. The stress of military life is much greater than many may believe going in. Add in that there's somewhat of a romantic notion of war and being a soldier held by many people of enlistment age, and sometimes there's a good deal of culture shock involved in the transition.
Perhaps this all boils down to the fact that I can't envisage myself ever willingly parting with my right to choose... throw in general leftist hostility toward the military establishment (you see a submarine, I see a lost hospital), and I guess that's why I'm quite firm on this issue.
My position likely boils down to extreme skepticism in regards to the "goodness" of the world and having been an Army brat for 18+ years. We all have our opinions shaped by our perceptions.
but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it" (ironically, I imagine in that kind of situation a lot of people don't want to follow through with those actions but go along with it... because they see their likely-equally upset comrades doing the same)?
Yes. Think about Abu Ghraib. How many of those men/women do you think really wanted to harm the prisoners, and how many do you think just went along with it?
Group think and peer pressure are especially dangerous problems in a military force in regards to matters like this. Militaries encourage close bonds and brotherhood in soldiers. While there are great advantages to this for a military force, it can come back and bite everyone in the rear end. It's a very difficult balancing act in regards to maintaining a soldiers ability to objectively reason and use proper judgement while integrated him/her into an effective fighting force.
Would you not attribute the lack of dissidence in Soviet Chechnya as being due to ideological reasons? Ethnic tensions only really surfaced in the USSR after the fall... I mean, here was a nation that technically guaranteed 100% employment and encouraged the previously repressed cultures of the Russian Empire to be expressed locally, coupled with the suppression of religion and good ol' curfew, that sounds like a harmonious society to me.
This is western propaganda at it's best. There was plenty of ethnic hate in the Soviet Union, always was. They just feared the red army more but there were plenty of uprisings. People in the soviet union were free on a different level than we understand. When I was there for a year I could do basically whatever I wanted as long as I didn't hurt anyone. Here in the good old U.S.A. I can't even have a bonfire at the beach or walk down the street with a beer in my hand. Don't fall for the cold war rhetoric about the average soviets life, it was much better than you think. There are so many beautiful churches, synagogues and mosques in Russia you'd be amazed.
but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it"
I'm sure there have, there are many types of war crimes. Raping is a big no no. But any mistreatment of known terrorists I have no issue with. These peoples goal is to kill women and children, I don't believe anything is too harsh for them. Just shut the door and turn off the camera when you are doing it. It's also one thing to go through military channels with your problems...It's another to go to CNN
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about ideology: I meant the (supposed) lack of Russian nationalism like what you would see today, in principle the USSR was a worker's state for the working class, beyond archaic concepts such as nationality, race, etc... I'm not saying that's how it always worked but any Soviet official would have to suggest that was the higher creed he acted in the name of. I wrote my directed study on Stalin's Russia from a defensive point of view last year, so please, don't take me to be an out-of-hand critic
I'd rather judge a terrorist case-by-case ideally, I mean... if an alien culture invades with force and starts imposing its values on your society... the gut-reaction is conservatism and I imagine Al-Qaeda to be the forceful imposition of that feeling. Though, I have no idea if it reflects popular sentiment... I'm just saying I can empathise to the point where I'm not willing to hate out-of-hand, all causes have killed women and children at some stage.
Wonder if I'd be playing that tune if they killed anyone I knew *shrugs*, better to try remain logical than get emotional because of personal circumstance.
Guitardian wrote:I don't need kids over on the other side of the world fighting people I have no interest in, spreading democracy in places where our influence is not wanted or appreciated, "defending our country", to feel free, or protected. I am more worried about domestic problems, or getting mugged by one of my fellow Americans, than I am worried about getting blown up by a terrorist. If you quit poking the bee hive, they will quit trying to sting you. Signing up for the military adds to the poking. So you're welcome, sebster, for my refusal to agree to do horrible things because I was told to. Actually I wouldn't last a day in boot camp because I just don't follow orders I don't agree with. I would be court marshalled or whatever pretty damn quick. So again, you're welcome. I'll go ahead and not sign that piece of paper out of consideration for you, seb.
That's nothing to do with anything. I am not and never suggested you actually needed to be a soldier, and there is no sensible reading possible of my post that could produce that impression. I did comment that I am grateful that the people who are soldiers are, and that you are not, because the people actually serving generally maintain a level of control and make measured decisions despite incoming fire.... whereas you believe that you would only be capable of opening up with maximum force. My point, that you seemed to have completely missed, is that soldiers serve with a level of competence you were claiming impossible.
mattyrm wrote:Yeah i have to agree with Sebster for a change.
Don't worry, I'll make sure it never happens again
But thanks for explaining clearly what I was trying to say. Just because a round flies over your head doesn't make you into a panicked loon who'll unload. There's hundreds of hours of training and a whole lot of professional pride that keeps troops smart and effective, and this keeps civilians safe. Well, not safe, but a lot more safe than Guitardian assumes.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yes I am well aware of what happened in Chechnya, The first Chechen war lasted 2 years94-96 and ended with a peace treaty although there was still minor terrorist activity in the mountains. The second Chechen war started in 99 with major actions finished in 2000 ofter the taking of Grozny. Since then most Chechen resistance has hidden up in the mountains launching minor attacks here and there (not to mention two well documented attacks outside of Chechnya). Nothing like the almost daily bombings that still happen to this day in Iraq.
Teehee. “ended with a peace treaty”
Umm, the first operation in Chechnya was an absolute debacle, the Russians lost complete control of the situation and the peace treaty was them giving up, ceding control and going home.
And again (and most likely again, and again, and again) Chechnya was formerly a Russian territory, with close cultural ties and a history of Russian administration, and with a sizable pro-Russian population. The Russians felt as you do that being brutal enough for long enough would ensure success, and this worked so poorly they had to turn tail once, and only succeed a second time with an immense expenditure of resources.
They turned what could have been a minor operation into a war of tremendous destruction, and you refuse to see that and learn from it. It is a fantasy to think brutality will be enough to solve problems and make you safe.
Never said Occestia was a terrorist attack. I was showing that Russians don't care about public opinion once the bells of war have rung.
I’m guessing you don’t spend a lot of time reading Russian commentary? To state that Russian reaction to the war was universally supportive is ridiculous. And it is equally ridiculous to lay blame entirely on Georgia, you quite rightly pointed out that the Western media’s assumption that it was entirely Russian aggression was mistaken, but then you make a similar mistake in assuming blame lay entirely with Georgia. Both sides were playing games, both sides are responsible for the dead. Well, and a little blame for the West as well, who engaged the Georgians with military ties, then backed off when things escalated.
A much better and glaring example more pertinent to your needs would be the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Here is another example of not going all the way in a war. The Soviets sent a fraction of their army, and the worst fraction at that.
Yeah, Afghanistan, where the Russians were once again incredibly brutal in enforcing their occupation. That brutality only led to further resistance, compounding the troop shortages, ineffective deployments and poor overall strategic plan, resulting in a hugely costly debacle.
My point, again, is that you need a plan to move towards being accepted as a legitimate government by the people, and that means bringing local powerbrokers onside, and providing value to the local citizens. If you don’t have those things, being more brutal won’t make up for it, it will only make the problem worse. Afghanistan is a classic example of that.
Israel Arab citizens vote and participate in the government along with Jewish citizens, can own and buy land, and are legally protected against discrimination in government services and the work place.
If you knew the region you would note my mention of 3.5 million people would refer to the Palestinians, not the Arab Israelis.
That's two countries (one by your count, which does not help your argument) that are run by western style government in the middle east. Both of which are contentious. So I think we can safely say they are the exception that proves the rule. So i'll go back to my idea that the area is just not ready for any form of western style government, ideas or kindnesses.
You said there were none, when there is one or two, depending on people’s view of Israel. Your claim was plainly wrong.
Now, once we accept that democracy is uncommon in the region, instead of non-existent, then we have a wholly different situation. When we further consider countries with elements of democracy, such as Jordan, we begin to build a much more complex view of the governments of the region.
Then we begin to consider what “being ready for democracy” actually means, and how countries around the world have become “ready for democracy” (in short: they get it then they develop the capacity to use it).
Then it becomes clear that your statement was quite ridiculous.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yes you are correct it is meant to be actually see "An exception that proves the rule" is a commonly used colloquialism. It means to express that one anomaly in a much larger situation proves that it is only an anomaly. But I'm sure you know that.
No, it doesn’t. “An exception that proves the rule” means that if we can identify the presence of a something as a commonly noted exception, then by logical inference there must be general rule for it to be an exception from. For example, if we were to note that it was commonly accepted that Jane was extremely fat for a New Yorker, then we could infer that there is a general rule that New Yorkers are skinny.
I'm in no way supporting the rape, pillage and plunder of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. But maybe Kuwait shouldn't shouldn't have been poking the bear either. It was really none of our business.
International commodities are not the business of the rest of the world? It’s a global economy, you are dependant on resource flows elsewhere in the world, particularly oil, and that means that it is your business. It isn’t nice to think in those terms, but it is unavoidable. Don’t pretend otherwise, it will only lead to you believing stupid things.
Andrew1975 wrote:3. The reason why we fight with our hands behind our back is to placate some peoples delicate seances of how a war should be prosecuted, which only increases our presence and therefore destroys the place we are trying to help, and also increases our proclivity to make war by somehow making it acceptable.
The problem is that this is completely and utterly wrong. Look, the military are not idiots. There is no more extreme environment for learning from mistakes, because doing things the wrong way gets the men you command dead. They don’t feth around.
Realise that, and note the trend in peacekeeping operations towards clear rules of engagement, towards engagement with the local population, towards reducing the overt threat. Militaries are doing that more and more because it is the way you operate successful peacekeeping operations.
Accept this and move on.
Andrew1975 wrote:Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't
Having sufficient troops to maintain the necessary level of control is a core issue, yes. But no-one here is arguing that you don't need sufficient troops, what we're arguing is that you need lots of other things as well, and your argument for completely ruthless response to violence makes most of those things completely impossible.
dogma wrote:Excellent copypasta. Perhaps you should start deleting citations before repeating that gesture.
At least we've got him reading. If we keep it up he might start getting some reasonable ideas.
Every body has a lot to sat about this. But that's it. No facts, just theories. Not one person has given me a situation where these soft tactics have worked. Oh except the reunification of Germany which was not an armed conflict.
And again (and most likely again, and again, and again) Chechnya was formerly a Russian territory, with close cultural ties and a history of Russian administration, and with a sizable pro-Russian population. The Russians felt as you do that being brutal enough for long enough would ensure success, and this worked so poorly they had to turn tail once, and only succeed a second time with an immense expenditure of resources.
They turned what could have been a minor operation into a war of tremendous destruction, and you refuse to see that and learn from it. It is a fantasy to think brutality will be enough to solve problems and make you safe.
Yeah I'm sure the two Chechen wars were far more destructive and costly than the two gulf war. If that is your point support it.
I’m guessing you don’t spend a lot of time reading Russian commentary? To state that Russian reaction to the war was universally supportive is ridiculous. And it is equally ridiculous to lay blame entirely on Georgia, you quite rightly pointed out that the Western media’s assumption that it was entirely Russian aggression was mistaken, but then you make a similar mistake in assuming blame lay entirely with Georgia. Both sides were playing games, both sides are responsible for the dead. Well, and a little blame for the West as well, who engaged the Georgians with military ties, then backed off when things escalated.
I said Russians at war don't care about public opinion. This means the men that run the military not the general public. Really, has there ever been a military action that was universally supported? At the point of belligerence it was all Georgia, as for games the Russians played you are going to have to provide some support for that. I can again point out that the goal of the invasion by the Georgians was genetic cleansing.
Yeah, Afghanistan, where the Russians were once again incredibly brutal in enforcing their occupation. That brutality only led to further resistance, compounding the troop shortages, ineffective deployments and poor overall strategic plan, resulting in a hugely costly debacle.
My point, again, is that you need a plan to move towards being accepted as a legitimate government by the people, and that means bringing local powerbrokers onside, and providing value to the local citizens. If you don’t have those things, being more brutal won’t make up for it, it will only make the problem worse. Afghanistan is a classic example of that.
The problem again here is troop shortage which i gave the numbers for. Being propped up and supported by the U.S. really helped. Wouldn't a legitimate government remove weapons from the hands of the populace? Seams a responsible and reasonable thing to do and adds a lot of legitimacy and value. Hey look I'm not getting shot today.
If you knew the region you would note my mention of 3.5 million people would refer to the Palestinians, not the Arab Israelis.
Maybe if they stop voting with rockets they will get to vote with ballets. They have however removed themselves from the political process by again launching rockets and have shown that they are not capable of serious political dialog by voting in Hamas. Besides the fact that no Palestinian that I know would claim to be an Israeli citizen. So you tell me why should they vote?
You said there were none, when there is one or two, depending on people’s view of Israel. Your claim was plainly wrong.
Now, once we accept that democracy is uncommon in the region, instead of non-existent, then we have a wholly different situation. When we further consider countries with elements of democracy, such as Jordan, we begin to build a much more complex view of the governments of the region.
Actually what I said was " The region is not ready for western style government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently."
Really? 2 Democracies, one of which you consider illegitimate Israel, the second one is a breeding ground for terrorists and a haven for Hezbollah, Lebanon, these "few exceptions" qualifies a whole region to be ready for the acceptance of western Ideas? Well in that case the 5 Muslims on my block must prove that the rest of the neighborhood it on the verge of visiting a Mosque. I'd take Jordan's constitutional monarchy over I took Lebanon democracy any day.
As of 2010, American organization Freedom House recognizes Israel as the only fully-fledged, free electoral democracy of the Middle East.
The below table summarizes the findings of the 2010 report on the countries of the Middle East. rated 1-7 1 being most free
- Country Political Freedom Civil Liberties Status
Israel 1 2 Free
Turkey 3 3 Partly Free
Kuwait 4 4 Partly Free
Jordan 5 4 Partly Free
Lebanon 5 4 Partly Free
Bahrain 5 5 Partly Free
Yemen 5 5 Partly Free
Palestinian Authority-Administered Territories 6 6 Not Free
Egypt 6 5 Not Free
Oman 6 5 Not Free
Qatar 6 5 Not Free
UAE 6 5 Not Free
Iraq 6 6 Not Free
Iran 6 6 Not Free
Saudi Arabia 7 6 Not Free
Syria 7 6 Not Free
Democracy is many ways incompatible with fundamental Islamic culture and values. The other issue being that in most cases there is no clear cut difference between religion and the state, this stifles democracy in the region. Religion is in many ways their government.
You must be the type that thinks Israel uses disproportionate force, which is a farcical term. If the Lebanese don't want Israel to attack maybe they should democratically vote and not let Hezbollah launch rockets from their country. You can bet if some Texas wacko group was launching rockets into Mexico because "De took are jerbs" the U.S. military would be all over that. Unfortunately the Lebanese government is not legitimate enough to remove weapons from their own terrorists. That is a picture of western values right there. You are probably one of those people that think the Israelis shouldn't have stopped the aid boat either. Again keep poking the bear. Keep tap-dancing on landmines. People actually engage in these attacks.
Do you think it is cute to shoot rockets at people? "Well it's just a rocket I don't know what they are getting all bent out of shape about". Really people? Don't start none won't be none.
But hey what a great Idea to put Israel there. More meddling,"now with U.N. freshness". Yeah I don't understand why people in the middle east will never trust the west and our values. Do you realize the only people we have messed with this much are the American Indians. We have been a destabilizing force ever since we touched foot in the middle east. JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE. They'll forget about us and kill each other, fine with me as long as someone keeps the pumps safe.
No, it doesn’t. “An exception that proves the rule” means that if we can identify the presence of a something as a commonly noted exception, then by logical inference there must be general rule for it to be an exception from. For example, if we were to note that it was commonly accepted that Jane was extremely fat for a New Yorker, then we could infer that there is a general rule that New Yorkers are skinny
Yeah so to say that Israel and Lebanon are the only Democracies in the middle east we can make the inference that the rest are not.....Can't We?
International commodities are not the business of the rest of the world? It’s a global economy, you are dependent on resource flows elsewhere in the world, particularly oil, and that means that it is your business. It isn’t nice to think in those terms, but it is unavoidable. Don’t pretend otherwise, it will only lead to you believing stupid things.
Sure they are important, they becomes our business when oil stops flowing or becomes terribly expensive. This only happened AFTER our excursions into the gulf. Because we created a chaotic environment in the middle east. Saddam didn't destroy Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil production facilities before we got there.
The problem is that this is completely and utterly wrong. Look, the military are not idiots. There is no more extreme environment for learning from mistakes, because doing things the wrong way gets the men you command dead. They don’t feth around.
Realise that, and note the trend in peacekeeping operations towards clear rules of engagement, towards engagement with the local population, towards reducing the overt threat. Militaries are doing that more and more because it is the way you operate successful peacekeeping operations.
Accept this and move on.
Yeah you are right the U.S. military does not make mistakes. You have swayed me with your wisdom sir. However by buddy from the army next to me cannot stop laughing for some reason. He's mumbling something about SNAFU. If your trends work all you have to do is show me an example of them working. But you can't because they don't.
At least we've got him reading. If we keep it up he might start getting some reasonable ideas.
I read a lot actually, This is why when I need some facts I can look them up and I'm not afraid to show that these are facts. If you read so much then you should have no problem showing me your data.
I wrote my directed study on Stalin's Russia from a defensive point of view last year, so please, don't take me to be an out-of-hand critic
I'd rather judge a terrorist case-by-case ideally
Sorry it was the curfew thing that threw me. You should know that culturalism was huge even in the Soviet union, there were always squabbles between the different ethnic groups . The Idea of the workers paradise never really lived up to the reality.
While I can get behind that not all Muslims are terrorists. I think we can assume that all terrorists are terrorists. If they ONLY attack an oppressive military force I would call them rebels of freedom fighters. That may just be my terminology. But once you actively target innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the war, you are just a scumbag terrorist.
Andrew1975 wrote:Every body has a lot to sat about this. But that's it. No facts, just theories. Not one person has given me a situation where these soft tactics have worked. Oh except the reunification of Germany which was not an armed conflict.
French Algeria, Iran, India, Australia, Turkey, Egypt, etc. Read the thread.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I said Russians at war don't care about public opinion. This means the men that run the military not the general public.
No military is run by the general public.
The majority of Russian state news agencies are focused on the military. Therefore they appear to take an interest in public opinion.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The problem again here is troop shortage which i gave the numbers for. Being propped up and supported by the U.S. really helped.
I have two candy bars. There, I gave numbers, is my opinion valid?
Andrew1975 wrote:
And as no Palestinian that I know would claim to be an Israeli citizen why should they vote?
The category you brought up removes 'Israeli' from the conversation. Seriously, pay attention.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Actually what I said was " The region is not ready for western style government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently."
Really? 2 Democracies (few exceptions) qualifies a whole region to be ready for the acceptance of western Ideas? Well in that case the 5 Muslims on my block must prove that the rest of the neighborhood it on the verge of visiting a Mosque.
Terrible analogy. Religious categories are not interchangeable with ideological ones; especially when you don't use the ideologies as unifying concepts.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah so to say that Israel and Lebanon are the only Democracies in the middle east we can make the inference that the rest are not.....Can't We?
No, because you're wrong. Turkey, Iraq, Iran.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure they are important, they becomes our business when oil stops flowing or becomes terribly expensive. This only happened AFTER our excursions into the gulf. Because we created a chaotic environment in the middle east. Saddam didn't destroy Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil production facilities before we got there.
Do you even know why we protected Kuwait?
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah you are right the U.S. military does not make mistakes.
That's not what was said. You are making it appear as though you cannot read.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I read a lot actually, This is why when I need some facts I can look them up and I'm not afraid to show that these are facts. If you read so much then you should have no problem showing me your data.
Words like 'shortage' are not related to facts. You have not presented facts that were not copied from another source.
Anyone who can consider a hug a threat or use that statement in a argument is just not worth having a conversion with.
According to you this guy is public enemy number one.
Besides at least I can quote sources. They add legitimacy to my claims. Is that a problem? (it's rhetorical you don't have to answer. In fact I don't want you to)
You seam to struggle to produce anything at all except popular and easy opinion.
Andrew1975 wrote:Dogma I'm not even engaging you anymore.
Anyone who can consider a hug a threat or use that statement in a argument is just not worth having a conversion with.
According to you this guy is public enemy number one.
Besides at least I can quote sources. They add legitimacy to my claims. Is that a problem? (it's rhetorical you don't have to answer. In fact I don't want you to)
You seam to struggle to produce anything at all except popular and easy opinion.
I'm done with you.
Admittedly this could be a joke, and if it is, good one. I chuckled at the idea of dogma's opinions as popular and easy.
mattyrm wrote:Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?
I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!
Meh, after gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the courts here in the states the bar for what counts as a democracy lowered a little bit. The vote was found in Achmadinejeads favor, and since we don't have an impartial body looking at the numbers we really can't say for certain if Mousavi won or not. Whats clear is that there is a strong democratic streak within the populace of the country and that the government has to be quite wary of how it acts the next time around.
mattyrm wrote:Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?
I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!
Meh, after gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the courts here in the states the bar for what counts as a democracy lowered a little bit. The vote was found in Achmadinejeads favor, and since we don't have an impartial body looking at the numbers we really can't say for certain if Mousavi won or not. Whats clear is that there is a strong democratic streak within the populace of the country and that the government has to be quite wary of how it acts the next time around.
As exmplified by all the arrests, torture, murders of protesters, and their political opponents who won the election...
I think Iran is one of those "technical" democracies. As in technically you can vote for who you want, depending upon how keen you are upon suffering beatings, shootings etc etc. I seem to recall Saddam being overwhelmingly reelected in Iraq on occasion as well, oh those wacky Middle Easterners !
It seems to me the way to get power in that area is to have a big moustache, once again proving the long noted OT board rule about power, corruption and facial hair.
mattyrm wrote:Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?
I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!
Meh, after gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the courts here in the states the bar for what counts as a democracy lowered a little bit. The vote was found in Achmadinejeads favor, and since we don't have an impartial body looking at the numbers we really can't say for certain if Mousavi won or not. Whats clear is that there is a strong democratic streak within the populace of the country and that the government has to be quite wary of how it acts the next time around.
As exmplified by all the arrests, torture, murders of protesters, and their political opponents who won the election...
*shrugs*
Hey, if Israel gets to do it to the people who won the election in Gaza! It's not like we haven't tacitly approved of harsh authoritarian "democracies" before. I'd say Iran is more of one then russia. It's a state in a transformative democratic state, like I said, I'll change my opinion if it happens again. Right now I don't think Dinnerjacket is a "president for life", and I'm not convinced the "green revolution" ever won the election in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:..but that's enough about America !
I kid, I kid !
I think Iran is one of those "technical" democracies. As in technically you can vote for who you want, depending upon how keen you are upon suffering beatings, shootings etc etc. I seem to recall Saddam being overwhelmingly reelected in Iraq on occasion as well, oh those wacky Middle Easterners !
It seems to me the way to get power in that area is to have a big moustache, once again proving the long noted OT board rule about power, corruption and facial hair.
Voting for the opposition wasn't illegal in Iran. The protest measures we're what was cracked down on. They seem to dislike "revolutionary activity", but the voters themselves weren't having their fingers cut off or anything.
The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.
The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later.
Because conceptually representative democracy is based on popular opinion. When it goes against that it gives the perception of functioning below it's intended form.
. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.
Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included. The mechanisms of the law were not designed to give ultimate legitimacy to the supreme court to decide our leaders, that was purely a coincidental outcome of the specific polling issues of individual states. It was neither the intention of our law system, nor the objective of our democratic system.
The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later.
Because conceptually representative democracy is based on popular opinion. When it goes against that it gives the perception of functioning below it's intended form.
. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.
Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included. The mechanisms of the law were not designed to give ultimate legitimacy to the supreme court to decide our leaders, that was purely a coincidental outcome of the specific polling issues of individual states. It was neither the intention of our law system, nor the objective of our democratic system.
Nor was it the intent of the electoral system to have a Apresidential election decided by hanging chads and then suits by the Democratic party to pick and choose which districts to have a recount in. Sucker please.
The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later.
Because conceptually representative democracy is based on popular opinion. When it goes against that it gives the perception of functioning below it's intended form.
. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.
Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included. The mechanisms of the law were not designed to give ultimate legitimacy to the supreme court to decide our leaders, that was purely a coincidental outcome of the specific polling issues of individual states. It was neither the intention of our law system, nor the objective of our democratic system.
Nor was it the intent of the electoral system to have a Apresidential election decided by hanging chads and then suits by the Democratic party to pick and choose which districts to have a recount in. Sucker please.
I never said we had a good electoral system (its not). I was just pointing out an instance where it failed miserably and a presidency was stolen by outmoded and unnecessary concept of electoral votes clearly demonstrating the inequality of votes had by different people in different places. I stated directly in my post that the courts decided upon "specific polling issues in individual states". But those issues weren't what caused the controversy, those would just cause a recount (repeatedly). What caused the controversy is the fact that the vote essentially went to a politically appointed body made up of staunch party members with a clear majority that ran opposed to the popular will of the people. The votes didn't matter because they actually didn't matter. The votes became irrelevant when it became the supreme courts job to decide who was the president.
ShumaGorath wrote:Mine wasn't a song. I can now see that you don't look at other peoples videos. I will leave you to your dog youtubes in peace and never look back.
ShumaGorath wrote:Mine wasn't a song. I can now see that you don't look at other peoples videos. I will leave you to your dog youtubes in peace and never look back.
Oh please lets not turn this into the Democracy, vs Republic, vs Democratic republic debate.
The true government of most of these middle eastern counties is a warped twisted Islam, used to control the people. In many ways it's like debating the government of the Vatican, if the Vatican could stone you for stepping out of line. Many of these countries were on their way to thinking about accepting western ideals. Counter productive meddling by the west has reversed these trends. Westernization by the gun is not modern westernization (sorry, American Indians).
We can not go to countries and tell them we are giving them the right to chose with a gun in our hands and then not give them to choice to not choose.NOR SHOULD WE. The west does not We at the most should help when we are asked to.
Does the whole world have to be democratic? Is democracy even the only for of acceptable western government?
The whole issue that I was really alluding to was that the region in general is used to savage treatment and order imposed by a strength of will, not values like our western sentimentality, or our social ideas of working things out with each other. So going into these areas, with too small a force (this is not 40K where 1000 marines can take a planet), being meek, and shying away from enforcing our will on issues like weapon ownership, we are viewed as weak and will not be respected. The second we leave, that place is going to erupt like a powder keg, just like Vietnam.
We failed to scare the terrorists, we failed to enforce our will on the WARLORDS (who might even be the same people). By doing this we have not created an environment of peace, security or order that will win the hearts and mind of the people. If you think my ideas are harsh, I guarantee whoever takes our place when we leave will put themselves in power through sheer brutality that will make what I am talking about seam like child's play. Then you will see the true cost if this mess.
I can see Shurma's video just fine. Juggolos? where is Tila Tequila when I need her?
Frazzled this is for you. Not sure if you have ever heard it. It's pretty obscure, It's full of wiener dog goodness.
ShumaGorath wrote:Mine wasn't a song. I can now see that you don't look at other peoples videos. I will leave you to your dog youtubes in peace and never look back.
blocked at work
Shuma and Frazzled, the early years:
How are my videos blocked, but yours are not?
Magic, powerful Mojo the likes of which have not been seen in decades. I have the touch. I have the power.
ShumaGorath wrote:Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included.
That isn't really an argument for you being right, just for you being sore about the outcome.
I'm sore about the fact that it happened, the outcome itself is somewhat irrelevant. I would state the same if bush had had the election swept from under him by a democratic majority supreme court. Your argument seems to come from the fact that you believe the electoral system was working as intended when it was overuled by the supreme court when they ruled an end to recounts in a contentious state along party lines resulting in a vote that ran counter to popular results. You are simply wrong in this regard. The founding fathers, nor any other body of government before 2000 would tell you it's the courts job to decide who gets to be the president.
I'm not really going to mince words here (for as much as I ever do). You are wrong.
ShumaGorath wrote:Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included.
That isn't really an argument for you being right, just for you being sore about the outcome.
I'm sore about the fact that it happened, the outcome itself is somewhat irrelevant.
Perhaps if your actions followed your words, people might believe you when you say this. You are petulant and petty about the subject, and hypocritical as well. Which is why I am poking you with a stick. I know you think a great deal of yourself, but that really isn't always enough; being a narcissist doesn't make you automatically correct in everything. Also, using bold doesn't really make you right either, just makes you look like you are scrounging because you can't think of anything better.
Perhaps if your actions followed your words, people might believe you when you say this. You are petulant and petty about the subject, and hypocritical as well. Which is why I am poking you with a stick.
Its fun to call people names and then never explain your reasoning. You are a stupid face.
I know you think a great deal of yourself, but that really isn't always enough; being a narcissist doesn't make you automatically correct in everything. Also, using bold doesn't really make you right either, just makes you look like you are scrounging because you can't think of anything better.
Ahh, yes. Lovely. Trolling after two gakky rebuttals with little logic or historical knowledge driving them. You deserve a trophy!
Siegfried Sasoon served in WW1 - I'm pretty sure he didn't serve in the recent Iraq war.
Right...
There no paragraphs or indentations.
.
