What are we to think of the allegations of "traitors"?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Guitardian**

sebster wrote:
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.

**Wrexasaur**

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.

**Stormrider**

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.

**dogma**

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?

**LordofHats**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**sebster**

Andrew1975 wrote:Who run's Chechnya now?

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.

**Guitardian**

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.

**mattyrm**

Yeah i have to agree with Sebster for a change.

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!

And thats a good thing!

**Tyyr**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

(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.

That statement is oxymoronic.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

GO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

CAPS LOCK!

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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?

**Frazzled**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

1. We shouldn't be there

Yes, you've said.

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.

**LordofHats**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**efarrer**

Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

**dogma**

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.

**LordofHats**

dogma wrote:You didn't answer the question.

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.

**dogma**

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?