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.

Until they surrender (Like thousands of other Iraqis did), they are valid military targets. Gimme a link to the 350 soldiers who tried to surrender and were gunned down (and no, I don't mean democracynow.com) and I'll take it under consideration.

Also, what does this have to do with carpet bombing civilian targets?

EDIT: Further more, a "retrograde action" whether under a white flag or not, does not constitute a surrender, especially when you are talking about 2 divisions worth or more of troops and equipment. Of all the American "attrocities" you could have cited, the elimination of rapists, thugs, and murderers has got to rank pretty low on the list. Are you seriously implying that anytime I wish to not die, I must simply raise a white flag and turn my back and start heading the opposite way? Must an enemy accept that as surrender even though there is nothing keeping me from turning around 50 miles down the road and continuing the fight?

Manchu wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Manchu. Part of the reason for that empire being established was that the people doing it were unashamed. Make the world England was their motto. America's problem is that they have an empire IMO, but either don't want to admit it, or lack the will to see it through. The problem with this halfway approach is that is effects the decision making process.

I dunno. It seems to me that it only directs the press. Americans love to talk gak about ourselves. We love worrying that Chinese kids do math better than us or that the someone might win more medals than us at the Olympics. Deep down, Americans are okay with having an empire whatever Michael Moore thinks. We also insist that it appear to be benign, at least to ourselves, which is why Michael Moore isn't even popular with leftists. We want you all to obey us because you like us, but in the end, obeying is more important. It's also different in that the American empire has grown up in the context of post-colonialism and as a former colony we're not as comfortable with outright empire along the British or even French models.

This sums it up perfectly. And it's worth pointing out that I am strongly in favour of imperialism. Though it may be paternalistic (some would even probably, though mistakenly, consider it racist), there are parts of the world that would, without question, be better off being run along American lines, and under American rule. It's just a simple fact. The same was true of Britain in the preceding 300 years. It has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with culture - there are places where corruption and brutality are the order of the day, where starvation, pestilence and civil war blight the lives of millions. It's not evil to want to change that. It's not wrong to create industry, investment and opportunities in places where there was none.

It could work. Americans just have to believe in themselves the way our forefathers did, and embrace their destiny.



You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.

Albatross wrote:


You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.

Sorry, we only accept unconditional surrender. Ke$ha is part of the package.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Albatross wrote:


You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.

Sorry, we only accept unconditional surrender. Ke$ha is part of the package.

ALLAHU AKBAR!

Clearly combatants, time for "carpet bombing" as CT Gamer so broadly defines it.

dogma wrote:When sold as humanitarian actions American wars tend to see about 60-65% domestic approval. When sold as matters of national security, they see about 40-45% domestic approval, unless proceeded by an attack on Americans or America.

But the difference isn't just in the selling, it's in what the nature of the operation actually is. Even the lowest of low information voters can tell the difference between a humanitarian action prompted by a civil war or somesuch, and an invasion designed to overthrow a bad but stable foreign government.

Interesting figure on the support for various operations. Do you have a cite? Not because I don't believe you (in fact it sounds about right) but becaues I'd like to use that on another site, and I know they'll want a cite.

That has more to do with the unpopularity of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent sense of isolationism that has crept back into US politics. Plus, as a Democrat who is highly unpopular with the Republican Party, Obama was unlikely to garner support from the supporters of the party that tends towards hawkishness.

Yeah, there was definitely a large element of Obama being criticised by much of the left because they like to talk about being doves, and much of the rightwing because they just really bloody hate Obama.

Empire is a euphemistic term in this case, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that we get into these situations, and make these mistakes, because we view ourselves as internationally unique due to our national history (exceptionalism) and position in terms f geopolitical power. In essence, we don't have an empire per se, but because we have such broad-based economic and political interests, we often exhibit behaviors that are reminiscent of one.

In essence, all nations makes ahistoric mistakes according to the the vagaries of the people in power, its just that when the US makes those mistakes it has a much greater chance of doing so on the other side of the world.

I agree with all that, and think it's a good way of expressing the position of the US right now.

But ultimately, no matter what the entanglements the US has gotten itself into in the past, I don't think it's that big of a claim to say that Iraq, being the invasion and overthrow of a despicable but stable government that wasn't in open hostilities with anyone else was a unique piece of US foreign policy, and not a thing we can reasonably expect to see again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I dunno. It seems to me that it only directs the press. Americans love to talk gak about ourselves. We love worrying that Chinese kids do math better than us or that the someone might win more medals than us at the Olympics. Deep down, Americans are okay with having an empire whatever Michael Moore thinks. We also insist that it appear to be benign, at least to ourselves, which is why Michael Moore isn't even popular with leftists. We want you all to obey us because you like us, but in the end, obeying is more important. It's also different in that the American empire has grown up in the context of post-colonialism and as a former colony we're not as comfortable with outright empire along the British or even French models.

There's also the issue that the US empire has risen up in a world that's a lot more aware that the racial justifications for colonialism were, well, racist bs. It makes it much harder to justify dropping soldiers in another country to run things when you can't pretend the locals are just more primitive.

Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Until they surrender (Like thousands of other Iraqis did), they are valid military targets.

EDIT: Further more, a "retrograde action" whether under a white flag or not, does not constitute a surrender, especially when you are talking about 2 divisions worth or more of troops and equipment.

Marlin Fitzwater promised on the record that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait.

The vehicles on that highway were responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. They were not initiating a military maneouver, nor moving to engage. The vehicle convoys on that road where moving as a direct result of being ordered to withdraw in compliance with resolution 660.

In fact Prior to the highway attack Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660.

As for the gunning down of iraqi soldiers trying to surrender at a US checkpoint following the highway attack it was reported in detail by Semour Hersh, a respected Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with war correspondant experience stretching back to Viet Nam. He also had a hand in revealing the goings on at Abu Gareeb prison. You can easily google his name/work if you choose.

sebster wrote:
But the difference isn't just in the selling, it's in what the nature of the operation actually is. Even the lowest of low information voters can tell the difference between a humanitarian action prompted by a civil war or somesuch, and an invasion designed to overthrow a bad but stable foreign government.

I disagree, because even people that study this particular segment of international relations have extensive debates over exactly that distinction. Debates featuring thousands of pages of academic research. Add in that humanitarian intervention doesn't necessarily preclude overthrowing a stable state, and the issue gets even murkier.

sebster wrote:
Interesting figure on the support for various operations. Do you have a cite? Not because I don't believe you (in fact it sounds about right) but becaues I'd like to use that on another site, and I know they'll want a cite.

I'm pretty sure this is it. Its definitely the author, but it might not be that specific article.

sebster wrote:
But ultimately, no matter what the entanglements the US has gotten itself into in the past, I don't think it's that big of a claim to say that Iraq, being the invasion and overthrow of a despicable but stable government that wasn't in open hostilities with anyone else was a unique piece of US foreign policy, and not a thing we can reasonably expect to see again.

For sure. In fact, if that article is the one I'm think of, then its interesting to note that the highest coefficient for support regarding military action is the association of the action with Saddam Hussein; something like 75-80% if I recall correctly.

Again, how does this pertain to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Also the night of the 26th to the 27th was the night of the "highway of death." Unlike "24" or "Mission Impossible" communiques do not travel instantaneously from a bunker in Baghdad to Washington, to Saudi Arabia to an A-10 in the middle of a strafing attack.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Until they surrender (Like thousands of other Iraqis did), they are valid military targets.

EDIT: Further more, a "retrograde action" whether under a white flag or not, does not constitute a surrender, especially when you are talking about 2 divisions worth or more of troops and equipment.

.

As for the gunning down of iraqi soldiers trying to surrender at a US checkpoint following the highway attack it was reported in detail by Semour Hersh, a respected Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with war correspondant experience stretching back to Viet Nam. He also had a hand in revealing the goings on at Abu Gareeb prison. You can easily google his name/work if you choose.

Ah yes, I was wondering when you'd bring up Seymour Hersh. The man who also accused American troops of being pedophiles and claimed that Hillary Clinton's hawkish view on Iran was due to "Jewish Money." The man may be a pullitzer prize winner, but then, Yasser Arafat is a Nobel Pease Prize winner as well.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:The troops involved were trained not to kill civilians. That training came from programs approved by upper echilons.

Sure, but that training wasn't provided because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians, It was provided because it is not expedient, politically or militarily, to kill civilians.

How do you know part of the reason isn't because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians? Why can't the reason for such training be a bit of both?

Hordini wrote:
How do you know part of the reason isn't because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians? Why can't the reason for such training be a bit of both?

Because I study military and security policy, and have worked with the people involved in making it through professional development courses, and direct interview research. Many of them likely have moral reservations when it comes to putting civilians in harms way, but when it comes to the formation of policy that isn't generally how they think. Its all based on a sort of objective-driven calculation where methods are compared according to how they best fulfill mission objectives given past results.

That said, I wouldn't doubt that, on some level, moral reservations are involved. I would just be very surprised if they were an especially significant factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote: One of the things I most admire about Ph.D. candidates and Professors is that they must be willing to take that kind of opinionated abuse (your theory/experiment/essay/dissertation is crap and here's why) and not only persevere, but PROVE the other guy wrong.

EDIT - and then be willing to modify or completely reverse their views if the evidence doesn't support their preconceived notions.

The first time you can rebut a professor and then systematically deconstruct his criticism you begin to understand why it was all worth it. Its seriously about the biggest ego boost you can experience, and most academics are nothing if not egocentric.

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:
How do you know part of the reason isn't because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians? Why can't the reason for such training be a bit of both?

Because I study military and security policy, and have worked with the people involved in making it through professional development courses, and direct interview research. Many of them likely have moral reservations when it comes to putting civilians in harms way, but when it comes to the formation of policy that isn't generally how they think. Its all based on a sort of objective-driven calculation where methods are compared according to how they best fulfill mission objectives given past results.

That said, I wouldn't doubt that, on some level, moral reservations are involved. I would just be very surprised if they were an especially significant factor.

I guess it depends on what level we're talking about. At the upper echelon, policy-making level, morality or moral reservations might not be an explicit factor. However, when those policies begin to reach lower levels, like the level where such training is actually implemented, moral reservations might take on a more prominent role.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote: One of the things I most admire about Ph.D. candidates and Professors is that they must be willing to take that kind of opinionated abuse (your theory/experiment/essay/dissertation is crap and here's why) and not only persevere, but PROVE the other guy wrong.

EDIT - and then be willing to modify or completely reverse their views if the evidence doesn't support their preconceived notions.

The first time you can rebut a professor and then systematically deconstruct his criticism you begin to understand why it was all worth it. Its seriously about the biggest ego boost you can experience, and most academics are nothing if not egocentric.

BrassScorpion wrote:And the improvised explosive devices just keep coming. The US is gone and the Iraqi people are still left with the continuing violence, corrupt undemocratic government, broken infrastructure and innumerable dead.

NC soldier, 23, was last US troop killed in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/nc-soldier-23-last-us-troop-killed-iraq-145741944.html

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — As the last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq on Sunday, friends and family of the first and last American fighters killed in combat were cherishing their memories rather than dwelling on whether the war and their sacrifice was worth it.

Nearly 4,500 American fighters died before the last U.S. troops crossed the border into Kuwait. David Hickman, 23, of Greensboro was the last of those war casualties, killed in November by the kind of improvised bomb that was a signature weapon of this war.

"David Emanuel Hickman. Doesn't that name just bring out a smile to your face?" said Logan Trainum, one of Hickman's closest friends, at the funeral where the soldier was laid to rest after a ceremony in a Greensboro church packed with friends and family.

Trainum says he's not spending time asking why Hickman died: "There aren't enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I'm just sad, and pray that my best friend didn't lay down his life for nothing."

First of all, if you actually read the article it doesn't say that he was killed after they left, they just say that he was the last American soldier to be killed. As far as this article is concerned there are no more IEDs, but there was a last soldier to be killed by an IED. The article did not mention anywhere that there has been a continuance of IED attacks. Also, if you read the article you would've seen this gem.

The one thing she doesn't have, she said, is guilt. Though she talked her son out of enlisting in the military a couple times over the years, the reasons began and ended with concerns about the safety for her only child.

But after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, she knew there would be no talking him out of enlisting. Besides, she said, "If I was young enough I would have gone in, too."

Even though the country's mood was much different in 2009 when Hickman joined the Army, he had no doubts about his decision, Trainum said.

"When I talked with him on the phone a week before, he wasn't unhappy about where he was or regretting being there at all," Trainum said. "It was just going to work for him, and he was looking forward to getting his work done and getting home."

@CT Gamer

Just because going up against the US was a suicidal option doesn't change the fact that they used that tactic and it doesn't change the fact that it was the cause for a high civilian death toll. We also had civilians being killed not by American forces, but by those so called "freedom fighters". All of those civilians killed while trying to join the Iraqi police force, insurgents. All of those civilians killed while driving along a highway, insurgent IEDs, all of those civilians killed in markets, most likely insurgents. The US has killed civilians on accident with predators or airstrikes, the insurgents killed them on purpose with crude explosives. Our conscience should be clear because the biggest difference between us and the insurgents is that we did not use civilians as shields nor did we intentionally target civilians.

Whats really sad about this whole thread is that THE OP IS RIGHT. And all of you silly Americans cant even admit that what the American government and military did to Iraq was state perpetrated terrorism. Yes TERRORISM. And yet you guys wondering around the world like tirgger happy gun ho idiots screaming we are the defenders of peace and the beacon of hope.

Most of the comments and posts arn't even releavent to the what the OP said. The main one which made me laugh was that some tard started to go on that how bad the OP's comments were and how many flaws he can point out. But he said he wont cause of how stupid or dumb it was. SO RIGHT THERE HE ADMITS he and the nation is wrong in what they have done but tries to hide behind some top class bull crap.

Im really sick of seeing so much usless American propaganda in the OT forum. And when something brilliant as this post comes along, it gets spat on by a bunch of pro-military and pro-terroists.

Expecially in this post their is so much useless crap said, that Im not even sure where to begin.

SOMEONE EXLPAIN TO ME THEN THE fething justification of why you guys invaded Iraq CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN. Tell me about the WMDs. Tell me ab out these so called Iraq terrorists that were out to get America.

The OP wasn't "brilliant" it was left wing nonsense, and a vast amount of people who said so aren't even American.

Also, you shouldnt call people tards when your own post is so hard to understand.

In fact, did you even type it? It looks like you put a rat in a shoebox and then left it upside down on your keyboard for an hour.

We should have let the japanese take New Zealand back in the days.

fantastic come back.

We should also just let the Chinese take over America when the time comes. Lol why am I even joking about that. Its going to happen.

Well New Zealand be in their expansion sphere. Of course like I mention before the US can go back to isolation beforr WWII and focus on our problems and let the rest of the world hang. Ever consider what would happen if the US were not involve in the world?

I rarely look into the OT forum, for many reasons.

One thing that is abundantly clear is...

The US is the new Roman Empire.

Many wonders, many improvements on what is the best for society...

The same flaws.

And I for one, love the US.

What would happen if the US isolated itself from the rest of the world? In no way am I advocating this, I just think it would make an interesting topic.

We spend BILLIONS of dollars a year on foreign aid alone. These are not loans, they are gifts to other countries. Just imagine what this could do for our infrastructure and economy if this money stayed home.

Also, how much money do we spend on the military in foreign countries. I'm just talking about our military based in foreign countries, not combative operations. If those troops and machinery were to be housed in the US, not only would the budget be lower, but our borders would be much more secure than they are now. Would this eliminate terrorism against the US?

These actions, of course, would have adverse effects as well. If we were to eliminate foreign aid, what would happen to the other countries around the world dependent on us? Would they survive? What kind of impact would this have on the US, and more specifically, the world?

What would happen if the US military presence around the world were to leave? Would countries fall into disarray and would anarchy reign?

Could the US economy survive on its own? Exactly how dependent would we be on foreign imports if we kept all of our money at home? Would we open ourselves up to attack by simply keeping our money and resources home?

The problem is that like all internet debates we have very quickly moved from a rational examination of the evidence to the extreme positions that the USA is either perfect or the Evil Empire.

The truth of course is that the USA is not perfect and has made errors in foreign policy as do all countries. Nonetheless, it is still the major part and effective leader of a broadly friendly coalition of countries such as the UK, Japan and the Czech Republic, all of which have a mututal interest in the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and free trade, in a world much of which is unfriendly to these concepts.

It does no service to the overall cause to either ignore or exaggerate the times when US/Western involvement has been done badly. We should also recognise the successes, such as our involvement in Libya this year.

Free beer for you Kil

your pick of beer from the list provided by link
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/beerhawkers/pool/interesting/

ParatrooperSimon wrote:
Expecially in this post their is so much useless crap said, that Im not even sure where to begin.

When you're right, you're right.

Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.

I think so. There is no such thing in 2011, in any part of the Earth, as a "racially primitive" human being. But the existence of "culturally primitive" human beings seems beyond question. They certainly exist within advanced societies (insert Jerry Spinger/Jeremy Kyle jokes). These people are ruled, perhaps with their consent (that is debatable), within advanced societies by cultural elites. It's not hard for me to accept that these same cultural elites do and indeed ought to similarly rule the cultural primitives of other societies and to rule entire societies to the extent that they are primitive. To the extent that it is more advanced, it is capable of "self-rule" and self-ruling vassal states (i.e., so long as the "autonomous" government friendly to American interests) is the preferred American approach to imperialism. In my view, the moral hangover that is post-colonialism is something of an overstated case. The rulers of the United States do not govern in a way that is necessarily beneficial to the type of people we see on day-time TV talk shows; I'm not sure what greater moral obligation they could owe to the rednecks/chavs/boguns/etc of other societies. (I also fully realize that sometimes "primitive" can mean "not in line with US/Western European interests.")

ParatrooperSimon wrote:SOMEONE EXLPAIN TO ME THEN THE fething justification of why you guys invaded Iraq CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN. Tell me about the WMDs. Tell me ab out these so called Iraq terrorists that were out to get America.

Sure I can explain it. The justifications is because enough people wanted one and once you start a war, it is really hard to stop one.

On to the point about using civilians as human shields: All is fair in love and war.

Also, creating civilain shields is a logicial alternative when being attacked by weapons that you can not remove from the enemies possession or counter any othe rway such as aircraft, artillery, cruise missiles, and Nukes. We essentially do the same with Nuclear War, only we give it a fancy name called Mutuallty Assured Destruction. Essentially, we are using the massive civilain populations as shields and hostages to aggresive enemy nuclear attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.

Wow.

<Checks Watch>

For a minute there, I thought I got thrown backwards in time. Nope, still December 2011.

How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?

mattyrm wrote:The OP wasn't "brilliant" it was left wing nonsense, and a vast amount of people who said so aren't even American.

Also, you shouldnt call people tards when your own post is so hard to understand.

In fact, did you even type it? It looks like you put a rat in a shoebox and then left it upside down on your keyboard for an hour.

Matt, I think you could tack the adjectives "crosseyed and ilitterate" in front of rat and you'd have a closer description as to what that post seems to have been written by.

Easy E wrote:How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?

How about comparing the number of people killed as witches, cross referenced with the number of ritual female genital mutilations in the last decade? Women's rights, health care, democracy...

A lot of the world could do with a bit of civilizing.

Manchu wrote:There is no such thing in 2011, in any part of the Earth, as a "racially primitive" human being. But the existence of "culturally primitive" human beings seems beyond question.

This.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.

Enjoy your comeuppance for the Spice Girls!

Easy E wrote:How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?

It's not a fine scale. Deciding whether the sonata-form symphony is more "advanced" than Hindustani dhrupad is not possible or even meaningful. Fortunately, this is not what we mean to consider.

Rather:



I know for some that this is irresistible hypocrisy-bait. Perhaps someone will find some pictures of Detorit slums. Or talk about murder rates there. Etc. Yes, cultural poverty can exist in the United States, as well, right alongside of material poverty. Yes, American cultural elites do impose this kind of poverty on people. But that's not the whole story, obviously. Getting bogged down in the fine-scale of hypocrisy doesn't supplant the larger disparities. The middle class may be endangered in America, but at least it exists. Consumerism may be a spiritual wasteland, but at least most Americans have ready access to food, water, and shelter. American democracy may be shallow and under-representative, but American citizens are not oppressed and murdered by their own government as a matter of its definitive practice.

I know that people can be sensitive about phrases like "culturally primitive." At the same time, to put it bluntly, I would never want to live in or even visit a place like Somalia because it is culturally primitive. Give me Detroit over Somalia any day. And I think Somalia briefly benefited from brief American intervention in the 1990s. What kind of American intervention would bring more lasting peace to Somalia? Let's ask the British -- although we may have to go back in time, as you mentioned.