It just so happens the USA's gets the most attention mainly because we send our dumbest and most unproductive abroad to fight our wars. There are messed up people in every society. Of course not all military personnel are unintelligent, but the majority are beyond what you would call educated. I have personal friends who fought in Iraq and for the most part they are all really lost as to what is going on in their life. But then again, they haven't had the opportunities that I have had. I get to go to college, they don't. So you know, whatever. Evil stuff is going to happen on both sides of any war. So just grow up and learn to accept the truth about war so that you can help prevent it in the future. This war isn't going to end anytime soon for western society, so if you want to dislike the USA , then try to think about what your country would be like without protection that you take for granted.
For example: Can you possibly imagine what the recent China-Japan dispute could have been like if the USA wasn't involved in that region of the world? Notice you don't see Japan whining about the island base on Okinawa after that. China and Japan have a deep-seeded secrete hatred for each other because of the horrible things that happened between them in WWII. Who knows what kind of things they would be trying to do to each other if the USA wasn't standing there with a massive army knocking on china's door. No one can really know, but do you really want to know? Don't take the country that protects you for granted. I have lived in Japan and I have known many internationals from my university, so I know how good I have it.
I had to register to add that not all americans think that imperialism is in anyway justified. I acknowledge that both wars were unnecessary and horrible, as is all war. But america is still the same country that hunted the native americans and enslaved the africans. Not that other countries are better, but currently america is taking charge.
If you guys want to see what life is like for an Iraqi after the invasion watch the movie heavy metal in baghdad http://www.heavymetalinbaghdad.com/ E: its in netflix on demand.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Contrary to media depictions, the US military is not raping babies and turning the country into a complete clusterfuck. I've seen bad shit come out of this but i've also seen a lot of genuine goodness moving forward as well.
Soldiers are only human. You will see some of the darker aspects of human nature come out in times of war but you will also see shining examples of loyalty and altruism.
On September 30 2010 05:20 eiswand wrote: Wow. You US guys can be so proud. You bring peace and democracy to the world.
...........
How about you try posting something useful instead of flamebaiting.
I have a few thoughts on the videos I have just watched. It is a reality that the US military has a system that does not promote a great deal of individual thought and initiative on the part of private soldiers, as opposed to the way, for example, Australian soldiers are trained to think as inidividuals within the unit. This has its advantages, but it does mean that US soldiers can do some very insensitive things (I'm not referring to murder here) that could be avoided if they just thought about it a bit more. I suspect something along the lines of more detailed media, information warfare, 'hearts and minds' training that gave soldiers a clearer understanding of the potential impact of stupid actions, particularly those caught on film, would help them out here.
I don't know if the US Army already has these things in place, or if it has taken action since these videos were filmed, if perhaps a US soldier who might browse here could enlighten me.
We do. Unthinking killing drone image of the US Military is a myth (except for the Corps, har har.) As an Infantry guy I am constantly encouraged to think for myself and judge a situation. This isn't Viet Nam, there are ROE and the cost of violating them is hefty for us. It actually reached the point late in Iraq where contracted civilian investigators would come out to the scene of a firefight and do their best to ensure that there was no foul play.
That being said, it is combat and combat is a shitty place. Not because of a lack of thought but because of lack of information and I don't mean in an Military Intelligence sense of the term.
Let me frame it like this: You have been in a city full of people who either love, hate or feel indifferent to you. The ones who love you and who are indifferent tend not to say a thing to you. The ones who hate you try to kill you, blow you up, scam you lie to you they will kill their own civilians who they are trying to liberate from our evil western clutches to get to you... Each of these three groups look the same, all of them dress the same and speak the same language, they go to the same religious centers they mingle together all the time. Some of the worst ones fight along your side for a time. So you as an individual, ANY individual no matter training or nationality, are prone to become a bit paranoid. Maybe your friend got blown up last week because some twelve year old boy tossed an RKG into his Hummvee after receiving some of the humanitarian rations that are given out (small scale "hearts and minds" stuff) and now some mob of kids are running up to you begging for candy and food and money while a group of adults stand across the street giving you dirty looks. What do you do? What if one of them seems to be throwing something?
Even less horrific a scene than that is some of the standard training we do get. We are mean, we need to be. Australians are too. If you are invading a house to snatch up a guy who is coordinating mortar attacks on your FOB you are going to kick over tables, raid closets, knock people to the floor, yell and scream and be vicious. That sort of presence actually keeps an already bad situation from becoming a blood bath. And you know what. Sometimes you get the wrong house. Unfortunate.
That sort of stuff happens and 99% of the time the right call is made. People get skittish, even professional tough guys. It is not a lack or training or sensitivity, it is the brutal and sad reality of combat. No one wants it.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
@ JamesJohansen, if you could look back to my last couple of posts on the previous page and throw in your 2 cents on what I said, I was looking for the opinion of a US soldier. That's if you can find the post amidst the mangroves that infest this swamp of trolls :3
@ unavailable: Sorry, I only just saw your post. I certainly agree that the judgement calls made by soldiers are generally correct, because such decisions are made daily but don't make it onto the news precisely because nothing untoward occured as a result of the decisions of soldiers on the ground. Of course not always the correct decision is made, but I understand that that is an unfortunate reality of war as well. There is currently a case going on in Australia where the decision has been made to charge in a military court several reservist Commandos who inadvertantly killed several human shields in contact with an insurgent; I personally think they made the right decision, but the result was ugly nonetheless.
I am only wondering if you think the relatively common incidence of US soldiers committing atrocities compared to nations such as Australia and Britain is simply probability at work (more soldiers=more potential for things to go wrong no matter the country), a problem with US recruiting standards, a training deficiency or anything else.
The murdering is despicable, but how do they act like smoking hashish is a big deal? I would be surprised if they DIDNT smoke hashish while in Afghanistan. These are people who kill for a living, obviously they need a way to escape from the terrible world that surrounds that. And besides, the US military has a long history of giving drugs to soldier including amphetamines to pilots as recently as this exact same war.
@JamesJohansen, if you are going to call someone stupid, the least you could do is learn how to spell you're.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
Stop watching TV.
I wonder where you get your information, possibly from your anti-american european media? Yeah that's not biased, you obviously know everything.
The truth lies in the midle, if it was solely for economic reasons shouldn't the US gain more than they're spending? Seems more like it gave them a massive debt but i dunno.
On September 30 2010 15:47 NightRapier wrote: @ JamesJohansen, if you could look back to my last couple of posts on the previous page and throw in your 2 cents on what I said, I was looking for the opinion of a US soldier. That's if you can find the post amidst the mangroves that infest this swamp of trolls :3
@ unavailable: Sorry, I only just saw your post. I certainly agree that the judgement calls made by soldiers are generally correct, because such decisions are made daily but don't make it onto the news precisely because nothing untoward occured as a result of the decisions of soldiers on the ground. Of course not always the correct decision is made, but I understand that that is an unfortunate reality of war as well. There is currently a case going on in Australia where the decision has been made to charge in a military court several reservist Commandos who inadvertantly killed several human shields in contact with an insurgent; I personally think they made the right decision, but the result was ugly nonetheless.
I am only wondering if you think the relatively common incidence of US soldiers committing atrocities compared to nations such as Australia and Britain is simply probability at work (more soldiers=more potential for things to go wrong no matter the country), a problem with US recruiting standards, a training deficiency or anything else.
I think a lot of it is rational, like you said. More=more. I also think that the US is under a lot more scrutiny than any of the other countries in the Coalition. I just like to give the benefit of the doubt to most cases, the OP excluded. I am definitely biased, though. I will say that the Military can appeal to a large segment of what is referred to as the "lowest common denominator" because it supplies opportunity where generally there is none but even a vast majority of those folks are not lacking in moral fiber. Combine numbers with stress and boredom and digital cameras and you are going to have a sizable pool of distasteful imagery. Again it is unfortunate and unavoidable. All I can ask of anybody is to remember that you are looking at the ugliest snapshots of a much bigger picture.
On September 30 2010 15:12 besteady wrote: I had to register to add that not all americans think that imperialism is in anyway justified. I acknowledge that both wars were unnecessary and horrible, as is all war. But america is still the same country that hunted the native americans and enslaved the africans. Not that other countries are better, but currently america is taking charge.
If you guys want to see what life is like for an Iraqi after the invasion watch the movie heavy metal in baghdad http://www.heavymetalinbaghdad.com/ E: its in netflix on demand.
thank you for your registration and comment besteady - the documentary you named seems to be really good and also worth the watch. im at part 5 now and part 3&4 were the most relevant to the issue as of now, i think.
@JamesJohansen @unavailable
On September 30 2010 15:16 JamesJohansen wrote: Contrary to media depictions, the US military is not raping babies and turning the country into a complete clusterfuck. I've seen bad shit come out of this but i've also seen a lot of genuine goodness moving forward as well.
Soldiers are only human. You will see some of the darker aspects of human nature come out in times of war but you will also see shining examples of loyalty and altruism.
you* must acknowledge that every act like that undermines the entire mission and no effort can be allowed to be spared to make sure that these things dont happen** and that people will be informed about such cases and that there will be an apology for every single one of them, so that your goal will hold up at all. that is if your goal is to bring freedom and peace. if it isnt, then i guess holding you to these standards and criticizing you by the examples provided in this thread is as much of a waste of time and misguided as it can be.
*or more precisely the people in charge of the personnel **happen as little as possible
enzym: What both of the posters you are referring to have said is that bad things have happened, and that they are bad, and have been carried out by bad people, but that these things are in the vast minority. That is their point: they concede that mistakes have been made, but measures are in place to ensure that, as you say, these things happen as little as possible. Their point again is that the mission is reconstruction, rehabilitation and additionally in the case of Afghanistan, maintaining freedom from tyranny, and that is how the overall effort is being carried out.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
Stop watching TV.
I wonder where you get your information, possibly from your anti-american european media? Yeah that's not biased, you obviously know everything.
The truth lies in the midle, if it was solely for economic reasons shouldn't the US gain more than they're spending? Seems more like it gave them a massive debt but i dunno.
Actually I get most of my information from a small selection of blogs, especially this one. Its founder is a US citizen btw. I don't claim to know everything (hell, i only understand half of what is posted there) but it still makes much more sense to me than any of the official mass media coverage.
Who cares about the US dept? It lies on the shoulders of the everyday citizens who are now indepted forever. Guess who got some big contracts over the last years? Private security companies, oil companies (oil production in Iraq has skyrocketed over the last few years) and last but not least the industrial sector which provides the military with all those shiny new toys. I don't know of any government in the current world which cares more about its citizen than the big boy CEOs which make the bigger parts of their GDP.
Anyway, I'm being too general.. Let's stay on topic :o
Some of you have some very bad knowledge of afghan history. I'll help you guys brush up. This isn't directed at anybody in particular, but I read the whole thread and a lot of people really don't understand what is going on.
Esp those people claiming this war hasn't been proven to improve our national security. I'm almost certain there actually has been a study showing there was, but I could be wrong. In any case, it is 5am and I can't be assed to find it.
****This is not my work. My friend wrote this up. He is currently an intel analyst in the national guard, and also contracted to northrop for a country report on yemen. He does this type of stuff for a living, analyzing history, causes, etc. He has a TS clearance, however all of this is OS and you can find it out yourself.*****
There is no logical reason to be against our involvement in Afghanistan. The Taliban are literally worse than Nazis. It'd be like being against World War II because we didn't do so well in Operation Market Garden. And by that I mean we lost 3,974 men in just over a week. A week. So, I will be discussing Afghanistan's past and likely future given two possible courses of action. In very simple terms.
The British In the 1800s-early 1900s the British went 1-2 in Afghanistan. The "win" resulted in Britain just claiming to be in charge of Afghanistan's foreign affairs. The Afghans let this fly because for the most part they didn't know about it and those that did know didn't really care.
The Era of Peace In the early 1900s the British "gave Afghanistan independence" (the Afghans pretty much had it the whole time). The Afghan government went about enacting social reforms (education for women, mandatory elementary education). Some of the reforms did no go over well with the religious types (no more veil, coed schools, etc). To put that in context with the US, Women had just gotten the right to vote and segregation between blacks and whites would be around for another 35 years. Oh and women were just recently allowed to wear pants. Anyways, that King left office, the next one was assassinated in a revenge killing, and the next one ruled from 1933-1973 in an era of peace and stability for Afghanistan. That's right. During World War II and the first half of the Cold War, Afghanistan enjoyed peace and stability. While Europe and Eastern Asia was engulfed in an insatiable blood lust followed by uncontrollable paranoia, Afghanistan was both peaceful and stable. It was also expanding its political and social freedoms and modernizing.
The Beginning of the End That all changed in 1973 when a bloodless coup made by Mohammad Daoud Khan. Khan angered the Islamists, the communists, and Pakistan. He wanted to get closer to the West and the Middle East. So the People Democratic Party of Afghanistan assassinated him. And with a name like People's Democratic Party you know shit is about to hit the fan. Queue state atheism, terrible land reform, and the imprisonment, torture, and murder of thousands of wealthy elite, religious officials, and intellectuals. On the bright side they at least wanted to educate women.
The Soviet-Afghan War So of course the Soviet Union backs this budding Communist government right next-door to them. So the US gets this crazy idea that if they back the anti-communist forces already present in Afghanistan, then they will put such a massive hurt on the Soviet Union that they will sink more and more money into it and cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. And that idea actually worked. Unfortunately for Afghanistan they neighbor Pakistan. Pakistan is so paranoid of India that they make the US/Soviet paranoia during the Cold War look like a friendly and open relationship. Pakistan has an obsession with having a Pakistan-friendly Afghanistan. So Pakistan required that all money sent by the US had to go through Pakistan. Specifically Pakistan's ISI (their CIA). The ISI has a long history of supporting Islamist radicals in Kashmir. Needless to say, the ISI gave most of the money to the Islamist radicals in Afghanistan. Most of the money went to an evil man known as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He has the distinction of never winning a major battle and mostly just fighting against other Afghans so that he would be in the best position to take power after the Soviets left. Pretty much no money went to a man named Ahmed Shah Massoud. He has the distinction of being the most effective anti-Soviet commander of the war. He is a National Hero of Afghanistan. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 (Jimmy Carter won instead). He was assassinated by al Qaeda on September 9, 2001. That day is a national holiday known as Massoud Day.
Oh also some guy named Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to build roads. He got in one little fight with a small Soviet unit and survived because he and his men holed up in a cave. He became a financier of Arabs (not Afghans) who went to fight the Soviets. He did not get money from Pakistan or the US.
The Afghan Civil War Part I Interim government is set up but Hekmatyar wants to be in charge so he attacks Kabul. Large fight in Kabul between Hekmatyar and Massoud and various other mujaheddin. Hekmatyar is unconcerned about killing civilians and destroys large parts of the city. Hekmatyar is kicked out of Kabul but takes up positions south of Kabul so that he can launch rockets against Kabul. People get fed up with the constant fighting.
The Afghan Civil War Part II Pakistan sees that Hekmatyar will never beat Massoud so they find a new group to create that Pakistan-friendly Afghan government. The year is 1994 and the group is the Taliban. Who are new and who mostly did not fight in the Soviet-Afghan War because they were busy attending radical madrassas on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Some like Mullah Omar did fight in that war a bit. But the group didn't even exist until 1994. So the Taliban take over Kandahar and then start heading north to Kabul. And who is still sitting south of Kabul? Hekmatyar. So the Taliban buy off most of the commanders in their way and Hekmatyar temporarily joins Massoud against the Taliban but then decides to just flee to Iran. Massoud leaves Kabul to the Taliban and withdraws to the mountains north of Bagram. They hold that line (but lose ground in other places) until the US comes to their aid in October 2001.
The Taliban People first thought the Taliban would be ok because the Taliban promised to get rid of the warlords. They couldn't have been more wrong. To get an idea of just how bad the Taliban are, here are some of the things the Taliban prohibited: unveiled women, certain hairstyles for men, keeping pigeons, woman's clothing with any ornamentation, kites, women singing, images or photographs posted in a public place, pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, anything that makes music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, TVs, anything that propagates sex, anything full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards, soccer, education for women, jobs for women, and many many more. Basically imagine anything that a normal person could possibly enjoy and it's probably banned. And if you disobey they will at best beat you and at worst kill you; either on the spot or at a soccer stadium in front of people who are forced to watch.
The Taliban's current pastimes include murdering young children (especially girls), burning schools, murdering aid workers, murdering civilians, murdering police, murdering military members, destroying vital infrastructure that provide power, water, etc...
Recap 1933-1973: Afghanistan peaceful 1974-1979: Afghanistan starts heading down hill fast 1979-1989: Soviet-Afghan War - Soviets destroy Afghanistan's infrastructure, Soviets leave 1989-1994: Pre-Taliban Civil War - Afghans get fed up with warlord fighting 1994-2001: Pre-US involvement in Afghan Civil War featuring the Taliban - Afghans learn just how terrible the Taliban are and plead with the international community for help 2001-present: US involvement in Afghan Civil War - Afghans happy that the US is there. US promises Afghans aid. Most of aid diverted to Iraq. US government half-asses war for many years.
Now try to image what it would be like if we left and there was still strong support for the Taliban. I've given you all the clues. Warlords propped up --> Afghans tired of fighting --> Taliban takes over 85% of the country saying they will end the fighting --> al Qaeda uses Taliban controlled Afghanistan as a safe haven --> Afghans ask for international assistance to remove the Taliban --> nobody listens until a terrorist attack occurs --> international community helps Afghanistan --> warlords propped up
On September 30 2010 17:48 NightRapier wrote: enzym: What both of the posters you are referring to have said is that bad things have happened, and that they are bad, and have been carried out by bad people, but that these things are in the vast minority. That is their point: they concede that mistakes have been made, but measures are in place to ensure that, as you say, these things happen as little as possible. Their point again is that the mission is reconstruction, rehabilitation and additionally in the case of Afghanistan, maintaining freedom from tyranny, and that is how the overall effort is being carried out.
there seem to be misunderstanding, but also disagreement here. let me try to make it clear.
these cases luckily probably are in the minority, but should in no way be downplayed by bringing up rate of occurance at all. there probably are measures in place to prevent such things from happening, but i dont see these measures to be working or to be sufficient and i dont see the military doing its best to prevent them. instead i see that there are measures in place to prevent people from finding out about them and if you read through the more recent posts in this thread you will also find out that there might even be practices in place to support a mindset that makes occurance of such cases more likely, but that it is regarded as an acceptable or necessary side effect of military training by the people making these decisions.
please let me know if i managed to improve your understanding of the situation with this post, or if there still remain questions.
No that's fine, I understand what you are saying. The question is then, what options are there? In my mind improved training is a good option, which is why I was looking for the input of people who may have gone through such training as they can provide the most informed view of whether or not it is enough. Then of course bias becomes a problem, but it shouldn't stop us from theorycrafting :3
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
Stop watching TV.
I wonder where you get your information, possibly from your anti-american european media? Yeah that's not biased, you obviously know everything.
The truth lies in the midle, if it was solely for economic reasons shouldn't the US gain more than they're spending? Seems more like it gave them a massive debt but i dunno.
Actually I get most of my information from a small selection of blogs, especially this one. Its founder is a US citizen btw. I don't claim to know everything (hell, i only understand half of what is posted there) but it still makes much more sense to me than any of the official mass media coverage.
Who cares about the US dept? It lies on the shoulders of the everyday citizens who are now indepted forever. Guess who got some big contracts over the last years? Private security companies, oil companies (oil production in Iraq has skyrocketed over the last few years) and last but not least the industrial sector which provides the military with all those shiny new toys. I don't know of any government in the current world which cares more about its citizen than the big boy CEOs which make the bigger parts of their GDP.
Anyway, I'm being too general.. Let's stay on topic :o
And this blog is more credible why? It makes much more sense to you because that's what you want to believe. I'm not saying mass media is better, but rather most information you get on this subject is biased, in your favor or otherwise.
EPT
