No wonder the world hates us

[WildGunsTomcat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e1trSD3Auyo#!

US Military Contractors.....basically former military guys that got hired on by a private company and contracted by the pentagon to do high profile security runs and the like.....

Shooting at civilians in Iraq.

Now I know we're not the only country to do this, I hear tales of the British contractors doing the same thing...also the French.

But Goddammit don't we have enough negative publicity without these fucking cowboys running around the streets of Baghdad killing people without a care?

[Figment]

That's been an issue since the start of the war. :/ Problem is the locals are not allowed to prosecute them, or so I hear. Something the Bush administration arranged.

But that's not the only thing. The remainder is about misplaced arrogance. You think we're arrogant when we crit the US, but basically the arrogance is stating the US is supreme in everything - while it's not - and a lot of Americans being of the believe that the US runs the world and has every right to. Similarly, things like protectionism of own industry (like the steel industry) does not go down well, if the US in the meantime complains about other things.

Another thing is that the US expects to get the private info from every person travelling to the US, while refusing to return the favour for any US citizen travelling from the US, because that would be invading their privacy by a foreign country. Basically, the hypocrisy and lack of tact and concern for foreigners. I mean, Bush once made a comment where he called the War on Terror a type of crusade. Not even realising how sensitive the word crusade is in muslem countries, where he was sending his troops to fight terror. The stupidity and clumsiness of the US in foreign relations particularly under the Bush administration is tremendous. And I mean, just look at the "The Hague Invasion Act" for foreign policy mess ups. Pass a national law that says it's alright to invade your ally's seat of government with military force, just to spring US war crime suspects from jail?

It doesn't help that bureaus like Stanford's and Poor's etc have a clear bias for the US and seem to deliberately weaken the EU at every opportunity. Especially whenever a step is taken to correct something, instead of rewarding that and bring stability to the market, they punish it. While completely ignoring the state the US has been in for years (US credit should have a B- rating, rather than AAA...) and got worse due to the Reps blocking action.

It also doesn't help that the banking crisis was caused by the US.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

To be fair on them, its either shoot at cars that are coming too close or get blown up by a car bomb.



Also, wouldnt being a soldier in a standing army during peace time be the cushiest job ever? It's just running around a field, firing guns etc. All with little chance of being killed. It may of been different during Machiavelli's time where the soldiers didnt get the "This is what happens when you get shot/stabbed/blown up" lecture and they had this gloried view of war.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e1trSD3Auyo#!

US Military Contractors.....basically former military guys that got hired on by a private company and contracted by the pentagon to do high profile security runs and the like.....

Shooting at civilians in Iraq.

Now I know we're not the only country to do this, I hear tales of the British contractors doing the same thing...also the French.

But Goddammit don't we have enough negative publicity without these fucking cowboys running around the streets of Baghdad killing people without a care?

Most of those videos are of actual U.S. Military and not PMC. Good job taking something some chuckle fuck with an agenda on Youtube said to heart.

[Figment]

Malorn, those guys shooting are mercenarys, more militia than standing army. How can you pin that on the army, aside from the army not doing these tasks themselves?

Also, envy? Irritation with misplaced arrogance like you just displayed with the envy comment... Your nation is not that prosperous as half of it is a third world country. Should we be envious of your crime ratings? Your national debt? No envy. Your lack of tact?

Honestly it is this sort of alienated attitude and lack of respect and appreciation towards the rest of the world that bothers people. Also annoying is that you only ever hear from the USA when it is in their personal interest. And even then you don't think of a way that is acceptable on a local level, because you don't even try to understand the people you interact with.

[Figment]

With Israël the problem the Arabs have is that the US supports Israël almost unconditionally and applies different humanitarian standards in what are crimes and terror. If the US was more critical and would react harsher to israeli oppression (like the wall), that'd help. They'd still be an ally of the enemy, but at least fair instead of acting biased out of holocaust guilt, lobby and cultural ties. Plus the (extremely) christian military presence on 'their' soil. Imagine if Russia had bases in Canada, or China on the border of Mexico.

Then there is the supporting of dictatorships like Egypt and other nations, just to not have communism or a population that may not like the US or Israel in charge. US hypocrisy, only spread democracy when it is in their interest. Bush Sr. call to rebel against Saddam and then not helping due to elections is also typical of this behaviour. Same for oil interest: Saudi-Arabian dictatorial and non-equality regime for instance.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

To be fair on them, its either shoot at cars that are coming too close or get blown up by a car bomb.

Can you imagine if that was the normal thing to do in their homeland? Car bombs and all are not felt as a justification by any innocent person and their family.

Fear and stooping down to terrorist level doesn't give you an ethical edge to wage war on terror. Plus Geneva conventions don't really allow this sort of thing. Sure, terrorists don't apply Geneva. But should the populace pay the price, or those trained and equiped to at least stand a chance? It's a lose-lose situation unfortunately.

[Figment]

Malorn, some militaries provide education during the tour of duty so there is no civil experience gap.

And militias cannot cope with standing armies. Not in 1812-1814, not today. Hence car bombs and terrorism as alternative tools. Would the Taliban not do guerilla by hising under the populace, you'd not have the above problem. Militias make a target out of the populace itself.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

Can you imagine if that was the normal thing to do in their homeland? Car bombs and all are not felt as a justification by any innocent person and their family.

Fear and stooping down to terrorist level doesn't give you an ethical edge to wage war on terror. Plus Geneva conventions don't really allow this sort of thing. Sure, terrorists don't apply Geneva. But should the populace pay the price, or those trained and equiped to at least stand a chance? It's a lose-lose situation unfortunately.

Having people drive up to you and trigger a large bomb in their car is not a normal thing in most peoples homelands. It's better for everyone to keep a wide berth from the contractors because they are targets and the suicide bomber doesent give a shit if he takes a few civilians with him.

It's clearly not a polite thing to do and actually shooting a vehicle is taking it to the extreme.
If the guy in the video had actually wanted to kill the civilians he wouldnt be shooting their tires.

[Warborn]

NATO vehicles on the road will ram vehicles in front of them if they're blocking them. Hitting a civilian and not stopping also isn't that big a deal. You can't stop when you're moving through cities in these places. If you stop, you will get pinned down and potentially killed depending where you are. It sucks, but the alternative is that insurgents just block NATO vehicles in and then blow them up, or make a person walk in front of a vehicle and get clipped for cash, and when the convoy stops they blow them up. Afghanis/Iraqis quickly learn to get the fuck out of the way and not go near convoys, so this stuff doesn't really happen very often.

The guy who made the video is a dipshit and knows zero about any of the SOPs for dealing with shit like this in Afghanistan/Iraq.

[Figment]

That's all nice, but it doesn't really help establish a proper connection with the locals. Quite the opposite. I don't find it odd the USA is or was seen as the occupier, rather than the liberator. Is that due to (necessary) safety precautions, sure, but it doesn't allow for trust to built up, quite the contrary.


The Dutch in Afghanistan were not seen as the same kind of occupation force as the Americans. More care for local customs and tribal relations resulted in a relatively quiet province and hardly any Dutch casualties that were down to non-accidents.

http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/NAF-The%20Battle%20for%20AfghanistanMilitancyConflictI nZabulUruzgan.pdf

This is a very interesting read in the background in which they had to operate and how the US/Australians have a more violence oriented, volatile approach that doesn't yield the same results as it would in a more western context. Why? Tribal relations, fear of being marked collaborator by either the west or the Taliban, backstabbing, etc.

The militia existing in Afghanistan are not a standing army, yet they actually result in severe widespread crime and lawlessness, as well as oppression of the locals. Why? Because there's no strong government, so it's every man for himself. A militia that does not have the purpose of defending the population, certainly in a tribal context, does not guarantee a safe and secure environment. Quite the contrary: it tempts to use violence to get your way and the lack of ethical training a modern professional soldier gets (not always true for mercenaries) and is bound to by Geneva convention, does not go for civilian militias.

There are better ways to have both.

I personally like the mandatory service model like Israel has where every citizen must put in two years of military service. The Romans did a similar thing. It ensures every citizen is properly trained and turns your entire country into a military reserve.

Yet this is used as an excuse by the Palestinians to justify targeting the civilians, since every civilian is a soldier. Basically, it creates an atmosphere where terrorism is an agreeable and acceptable form of combat: you are fighting soldiers wearing civilian clothes after all. You also don't just see the Israeli army as the enemy, but every single Israeli.

This has been literally used as an argument for attacking civilian targets and tbh, the logic is even sound as long as you don't attack people unable to serve (children/elderly) as every single Israeli doubles as a soldier.

And no, I would not say they're properly trained. Draft and mobilisation does not mean they're effective soldiers and killing machines in comparison to people who have been trained for years.

A friend of mine took up a profession as a bodyguard for politicians after having served in Afghanistan. He has very strict rules to follow. The problem is that the private security forces in Iraq feel they are above the law and they act that way too. Worse, a lot of troops in Iraq feel they're elevated above the locals as a people.



Btw, speaking of army excesses, look at this type of people in your army:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488

That's a bigger concern than standing armies you have: a fanatic zealot subsection within the army that treats people of other faith as sub-humans. :/ And then we haven't discussed the atrocities performed by (untrained) prison guards that get bored. Or the stupidity of officers not understanding after this many years of insane response to it, what happens if you burn a Koran (and muslems anywhere find out). Do note, I find the response of muslems to this sort of thing insane, like there are many other insane examples of fanatism within the muslem world. It would be nice if the ones reacting so strongly would have had a bit of a proper education and capacity of relativation, but alas they do not.

[Warborn]

Another reason there haven't been many Dutch casualties is because they don't stop their convoys in the middle of unfriendly cities because a slow driver is in front of them, or a local is struck by a vehicle. That kind of shit looks bad on camera, but so does a convoy of destroyed vehicles and dead soldiers because they made themselves a target by halting in unfriendly territory. There is a give-take relationship in dealing with Afghanis. Observing local customs is cool, but not getting fucking killed is also a benefit. Case in point: Canadian officer removes his helmet when talking to local elders, a sign of respect for local customs, and is attacked with an axe and suffers massive brain trauma as a result. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Greene)

[Sgt Shultz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e1trSD3Auyo#!

US Military Contractors.....basically former military guys that got hired on by a private company and contracted by the pentagon to do high profile security runs and the like.....

Shooting at civilians in Iraq.

Now I know we're not the only country to do this, I hear tales of the British contractors doing the same thing...also the French.

But Goddammit don't we have enough negative publicity without these fucking cowboys running around the streets of Baghdad killing people without a care?

Two things. First, I would seriously question if the person who posted this on YouTube has an agenda or not. In this day and age it's a very relevant question to ask.

Second, as cold as mercs seem I don't think was done because the people involved are moral or mental deficient in any way. More likely then of its SOP because not following SOP gets you dead. Pretty sure bad publicity loses out to being a corpse any day of the week.

[Figment]

Blackwater has been known for this sort of thing since at the very least the second year of the US-coalition presence in Iraq. There are a lot of vids like this with the humvee type driving and ramming and (especially to a bystander) seemingly wanton destruction. Blackwater's personnel has been repeatedly and consistently accused of arbitrary and irresponsible behaviour, while being free from prosecution. It's a bit like if police were above the law in the US, or if prison guards do not have rules to abide by. Meanwhile they're also far more expensive than the regular army (as usual with mercs).

Take a look at this old bit of news.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/26/our_mercenaries_in_iraq_blackwater_inc

Also look at some of the related topics.

You know that sociological study where random students with no training or instructions on what is and is not allowed, were told to keep order in prisons and ended up torturing other students who rollplayed the prisoners? What if a similar sociological effect can be applied to these mercs?

What if you had the same lack of restriction on police? Would you get South African Apartheid police where police brutality was not just common, but also left unchecked? What if you leave a private army or army to do whatever?

Do you get the type of thing of raping and pillaging what they can, because they can and nobody would stop them? These people are not the top of the line, they need a leash. There need to be repercursions to improper use.



Besides, I notice the attitude in this thread as well, but what exactly makes their lives more important than the lives of other people that THEY get to do this, but everyone else just has to accept their secondary or tertiary class citizens in comparison? I'm not sure what kind of security you create by ramming people in the street, causing arbitrary property and bodily damage just because someone obeyed road rules: traffic light on red: stop. Green: drive. OH CRAP COLONNE OF HUMVEES - WAIT WHAT THEY SHOOT AT/RAM ME?!


Sure, being stopped/blocked can create an opportunity for an attack, but does that mean your paranoia should cause you to threaten the security of everyone around you? And how does that transfer a feeling of security and state of law (which you are supposedly there for) to the people?

Does not seem like a healthy situation to me. I understand why from a military pov you'd want to drive on, it does not help ease tentions in the country. Hell, if you were perfect models of law and order and set an example, yet were still attacked, sure, you'd be the victim, but you'd also be empathised with. Which in the long run would probably result in less recruits of disgruntled people.


Regardless, Bush was to blame for this whole insurgency and insecurity by dismantling the Iraqi army immediately and throwing the country into disarray, instead of listening to his generals and even Sun Tzu and taking it over, weeding out the bad apples over time. When I heard they decided to disband the army over night without even setting up security posts at all the ammo dumps, my jaw just dropped due to seeing a form of stupidity I thought even Bush Jr. was incapable of.

I do wonder how strong the Blackwater and other arms lobby was in doing so though.

[Firefly]

Blackwater has been known for this sort of thing since at the very least the second year of the US-coalition presence in Iraq. There are a lot of vids like this with the humvee type driving and ramming and (especially to a bystander) seemingly wanton destruction. Blackwater's personnel has been repeatedly and consistently accused of arbitrary and irresponsible behaviour, while being free from prosecution. It's a bit like if police were above the law in the US, or if prison guards do not have rules to abide by. Meanwhile they're also far more expensive than the regular army (as usual with mercs).
I worked for two separate PMCs when I got out of the Army, both companies sent me back downrange. None of them were Blackwater. Blackwater was a bunch of thugs - not even SF/SEALs would join them, after a certain point, unless they needed a quick burst of cash. Blackwater has a reputation in the community of hiring any dipshit with a DD-214 (your bye-bye paperwork). A majority of their contractors are ex-fobbits and idiot grunts with an axe to grind. And not to make a personal dig but a lot of them were former Marines. They also reportedly took in people regardless of what their discharge said, so long as it wasn't Bad Conduct or Dishonourable. That's why there was a break-away company that took some of the best lessons learned from Blackwater, and left the dregs to deal with the fallout.

The thing you have to remember, and this is no way an excuse, is that PMC operators are doing shit that the average soldier cannot do. They're doing a lot of bodyguard shit, as opposed to standing guard duty on a tower or running foot patrols in fields. Those bodyguard details are serious shit - you're not guarding some infantry colonel - you're guarding a high-level official who's worth a billion dollars (figure of speech). These are usually one-in-a-million people who are high-value targets. If they die, you're seriously fucked. So they take a no-holds-barred approach.

Lessons learned from being a grunt on the ground also taught PMCs, as Warborn pointed out, that you don't sit around and lollygag waiting for a local to get his car out of the way. Locals quickly learned, unfortunately the hard way, to stay the fuck away from any military or PMC convoy. They get rammed if they don't. Not good on building relations with the locals, but let me tell you something, Figment: your car getting rammed is a lot less violent than the shit that you get from the Taliban. As it turns out, locals generally tend to accept this behaviour as the lesser of two evils - at least in Afghanistan. And in case you're tempted to get all high and mighty, let me tell you one single story of Taliban behaviour. The Taliban (not al'Qaida) had a habit of coming into a village in the middle of the night and busting into a local's house. They'd make the father or the son swear an oath of allegiance. Then to prove it, that "recruit" would have to put a female family member in the oven and hold the door shut until the person was dead. I heard an elder say, once, he could accept the burden of Coalition roughness if it meant keeping the Taliban at bay.

On a personal note, most PMC operators view it as a matter of pride to conduct themselves professionally. For every Blackwater machine-gun monkey you hear about, there are a thousand quiet professionals that you DON'T hear about, doing their job and doing it well. Painting them all with the same brush is like saying every Dutchman is a stoned deviant sex addict just because of a red light district.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

I never said there were no better private companies than Blackwater (hence I named them specifically and stated they were known for behaving very badly).

Also never said it wasn't without risk and I also never argued what the Taliban do is not worse. Have you read the article I posted earlier? That shows the complicated nature of the Afghan mission in quite some detail.



What I did say, is that observing or respecting local customs and if you expect others to abide by laws, to also follow those laws yourself and set an example.

Never did I say that removing your helmet does not involve risk and should be done with great care and careful consideration of the situation (if it's possible or not), but, that axing was merely an incident. It doesn't happen that much and it's extremely unfortunate when it does. To base policy on incidents is IMO bad, because then you would not get positive results based on the removed policy elsewhere. It's not ignorant, it's willingly accepting some risk. Sometimes the higher the risk, the higher the reward and unfortunately in a war, soldiers and civilians are always the ones to pay the price.

Though with only around 1800 dead casualties in the entire war, I can't say it's an extremely intense war on a physical level, more so on a psychological level because it's taking so damn long and because of the type of combat applied by the Taliban (ambush and bombings often using civilians and sometimes even children). :/ Sometimes I wonder if the nations involved in the war are really committed to winning it, since sending only a few troops (say 2.000) to cover a province the size of a nation in Europe or state in the US is simply not a lot. IMO that's one reason why the war against the Taliban is dragging on, the other is the complexity of a tribal nation. If they were a unified people and had a simpler geography, it'd be entirely different. IMO it's been extremely underestimated just how hard it'd be to pacify a nation like Afghanistan.

However, it then doesn't help that to appease the media, the death toll is kept low by applying low risk strategies and a lot of long distance strikes, resulting in a lot of errors being made with civilian casualties as a consequence. :/ I'm not saying it can be avoided, but a too low risk approach both in combat and in civilian situations IMO simply does not yield proper results, but mostly can be used to create frustration within the Afghan populace.


And there is simply no excuse for stupidities like burning Korans, regardless what they were used for.

You Americans should know, it's like insulting Nascar in Alabama! D:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6987775n
http://mcooki.es/57748

[Noivad]

The world will always hate the US.

Thats a Fact get used to it.

It has always been hated since its begining. It took 11 years to Ratify the Constitution an the formal government started on a wednesday - March 4th 1789 in New York City, New York.

It is the 1st government of its type.

Before this point in time all governments were ruled.

The United States was the first Free Country which gave specfic rights to its people.

So Lets Keep the Terms Straight.

Stop blurring them.

There are no real civilians in a War Zone.

But what is a War Zone.

It is a geographical place that War is being conducted.

Well what is war.

War is an organized, armed, and often a 'prolonged conflict' that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war, (and other violence) is usually called peace.

There are numerious types of warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Warfare_by_type

Fact If there is no peace there is war.

What is a civilian - The word "civilian" goes back to the late 14th Century and is from Old French civilien, "of the civil law". It was used to refer to judges, lawyers, firemen, police, and other civil servants. Civilian is believed to have been used to refer to non-combatants as early as 1829.

Fact: If you refer to yourself as a civilian then you are a non combatant.

Non-combatant is a term in the law of war describing civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities, persons such as medical personnel and military chaplains who are member of the armed forces, but are protected because of their specific duties (as described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977), and combatants who are hors de combat ("outside the fight"); that is, sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

Article 50 Protocol I defines a civilian as a person who is not a privileged combatant. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to civilians (unless they are unprivileged combatants) and civilian populations. Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also prohibits attacks directed against civilians. Not all states have ratified Protocol I or the Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.

Article 3 in the general section of the Geneva Conventions states that in the case of armed conflict not of an international character (occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties) that each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions to non-combatants: They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Fact If your in a War Zone then you are either a Combatant or NON combatant.

If you don't want to be either of these things then you can become a Refugee

What is a Refugee

The term refugee is often used to include displaced persons who may fall outside the legal definition in the Convention,[3] either because they have left their home countries because of war and not because of a fear of persecution, or because they have been forced to migrate within their home countries.

The term refugee is often used to include displaced persons who may fall outside the legal definition in the Convention, either because they have left their home countries because of war and not because of a fear of persecution, or because they have been forced to migrate within their home countries.

If you are not a Refugee who escapes his country that is considered a war Zone then you are eith a combantant or a non combantant.

It should be noted that all three die in war zones. refugees sometimes don't make it out.

If you live in a war zone regardless of who you are you should realize that you can die there.

Thats common sense.

Its going to happen.

If you have no common sense you will stay in the war zone.

Combantants are of two types - privileged and unpriviledged

A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who takes a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.

Privileged combatantsThe following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

Unprivileged combatantsMain article: unprivileged combatant
There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:

Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries, child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.

So please stick to the laws of War


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

When discussing War keep the terms straight so there are no misunderstandings.

[Red Beard]

Most of those videos are of actual U.S. Military and not PMC. Good job taking something some chuckle fuck with an agenda on Youtube said to heart.

Sounds like you've played cowboy yourself.

[Red Beard]

Fact: If you refer to yourself as a civilian then you are a non combatant.


...Unless the state deems you unlawful enemy combatant. Then secretly arrests, tortures and convicts you using evidence not made available to the defence. :no:

They're just changing the laws as they go. The Bush administration retroactively changed laws to make the illegal things they were doing...legal. Then Obama campaigns to shut down Gitmo and then signs a law making preventative indefinite detainment legal. That's a joke.

Talk about the rule of law when the law isn't applied equally doesn't really hold much water IMO.

[Warborn]

The world will always hate the US.

Thats a Fact get used to it.

It has always been hated since its begining. It took 11 years to Ratify the Constitution an the formal government started on a wednesday - March 4th 1789 in New York City, New York.

It is the 1st government of its type.

Before this point in time all governments were ruled.

The United States was the first Free Country which gave specfic rights to its people.

I don't think anyone really cares about this stuff. I mean, as a non-American I don't hate the US but overall don't have any real opinion about its form of government or whatever, either. And I don't know anyone who does talk about disliking the US because of how their government works, or they're "more free" or whatever. People really don't care about that stuff.

What people do care about is the fact that the US has a very aggressive foreign policy which is essentially amoral. It will support bloody dictators if that's what serves its interests, or go to war with countries that have nothing to do with anything and lie and mislead to make it seem like it's really an act of preemptive self-defense. That's the stuff the world cares about.

I mean, take the 9/11 stuff. Why'd those guys do it? Was it because they were jealous of America's FREEDOM? No. They didn't like US support of Israel, US bases in Saudi Arabia, and what they saw as attacks on Muslims by Western imperialism. Hardly an excuse, but still, even the guys who fly planes into buildings didn't do it because they're just so jealous of the Bill of Rights or whatever.

[Figment]

http://www.dogfilm.net/2012/04/bring-out-the-dead-us-troops-pose-with-afghan-body-parts/

Or this and the links below that.

They're not exactly making the US military more loved or respected. So how many incidents have there been with US troops disrespecting prisoners, holy items (including holy books), but even disrespectfully handling corpses? And I'm trying to say that in a nice way...

Why is it that you never hear any such incidents off other armies? :/ I mean, you hear about accidental killings of civilians during a campaign. You hear of bombings and drones hitting the wrong target. That I can imagine happens in war. But posing with disembodied human legs? :/


How can these soldiers - and let me stress they're still a small minority within a very big army - be THIS insensitive, stupid and plainly dumb? How can they NOT figure out in advance that this puts every other US soldier, every other NATO soldier, in more danger, leads to violent outbursts and makes their work harder and everything a lot easier for the enemy in recruiting and gaining support?

[Vash02]

Really those acts of brutality and abuse should be taken as an act of treason. The soldiers involved obviously dont give a fuck about their fellow soldiers.

But there is that 18 month tour of duty american soldiers have to do. That may fuck with their heads somewhat, being stuck in a bloody hot country with no AC and being fired upon constantly.
I dont know about the other NATO nations but in Britain its only a 6 month ToD followed by at least a year off.

[Warborn]

http://i.imgur.com/k6tsF.jpg

[Red Beard]

What people do care about is the fact that the US has a very aggressive foreign policy which is essentially amoral. It will support bloody dictators if that's what serves its interests, or go to war with countries that have nothing to do with anything and lie and mislead to make it seem like it's really an act of preemptive self-defense. That's the stuff the world cares about.


What he said.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[HalfManHalfGod]

Oh hey lets all post pictures about how terrible war is. Lets throw in some a-bomb pictures from WWII, and Vietnamese girls covered in napalm.

How about the sound of people hitting pavement as they jumped off the World Trade Center preferring fall to their deaths than be burned alive? Or random Americans being beheaded on video?

War sucks. Even with all the advanced technology sometimes ordinance doesn't land where you want it to, and the bad guys don't always cluster up with other bad guys. They hide in homes and use human shields and all sorts of dirty stuff because they believe that a few horrible pictures like the ones above will make Americans lose heart and stop fighting. That's their weapon and the key to victory. Thanks for helping them out.

And thanks Clinton for setting that precedent in Somalia that the tactic works.



Malorn, see post #19

[Red Beard]

War sucks

It's not a war; it's an occupation.

[HalfManHalfGod]

It's not a war; it's an occupation.


Doesn't make the statement any less true.

Although I think you're right POTUS has outlawed the term "War on Terror".

[Warborn]

Oh hey lets all post pictures about how terrible war is.

That's the point. People don't like it when the US makes wars in their area over bullshit. Yes, war is terrible. Soldiers intentionally or accidentally killing people is a Bad Thing. So maybe the ease at which the US goes to war (which, lets remember, is "terrible") might have something to do with the ill will certain nations feel toward America. Maybe people are more concerned about their leg being blown off or 17 of their friends being killed in their homes by a crazy soldier than by how super the first amendment to the US Constitution is or whatever.

[Red Beard]

That's the point. People don't like it when the US makes wars in their area over bullshit. Yes, war is terrible. Soldiers intentionally or accidentally killing people is a Bad Thing. So maybe the ease at which the US goes to war (which, lets remember, is "terrible") might have something to do with the ill will certain nations feel toward America. Maybe people are more concerned about their leg being blown off or 17 of their friends being killed in their homes by a crazy soldier than by how super the first amendment to the US Constitution is or whatever.


I think this sums up your point pretty good.

http://bubblare.se/movie/jon_stewart_america_to_the_rescue

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Red Beard]

Malorn you got some great posts, but I' gotta say;

What America does doesn't affect the way people see America.

I have no idea how you conclude something like that...?

WWII also showed us what happens if you ignore tyrants or try to appease them - they take more and more. That's what Hitler did, and later we saw the oppression of communism. We can't sit back and let the world go to hell, and we certainly can't let another country go to war against us by proxy of terrorists (Taliban). Saddam may or may not have had weapons of mass destruction. But he did and would have done far more death and suffering to his own people than US involvement has done in the last 9 years. The man killed entire villages and used nerve gas on his own people for no other reason than they weren't the right ethnicity or religion. He used UN food money to build palaces while his people starved.

I believe they call it "the war on terror" these days. WE are the problem now.

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953


"There's a lot of evil in the world and it will happen whether the US intervenes or not. We have the power to stop some of it, and prevent it from developing into something much worse."

I'm pretty sure much of the "intervention" you mention has in fact been the worsening development.

[Red Beard]

Maybe people are more concerned about their leg being blown off or 17 of their friends being killed in their homes by a crazy soldier than by how super the first amendment to the US Constitution is or whatever.

Good point...Though its a moot point for the purposes of your post; I gotta say:

"What first amendment?"


http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/free-speech-zone.jpg
http://www.photoscapedesign.com/Places/California-2009/Muir-Woods/IMG0290/614141125_avTq7-L-1.jpg


"See this little box here? You're free in there!"

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Baneblade]

America wouldn't be so reviled if we would grow out of this interventionist phase. Helping is one thing, shoving our cock down the throats of people we have no ties with... is another.

Get rid of our foreign soil bases, all of them. Eliminate the USAF entirely, the only thing it does that the Navy doesn't is hand deliver nukes. Merge the Marines back into the Navy, reorganize the Army into the Guard. And run it like the Guard including greatly decreasing the overall size. Reduce the scope of the Navy from global to North Atlantic and Pacific.

[Figment]

Hitler attacked the USSR because he expected them to attack him at some point anyway and hoped to convince the Brits to accept the status quo on the continent (he even called on the allies to join in the war against the USSR in the declaration of war speech iirc).

The USSR kinda expected an invasion as well from Germany, just not so soon. So yes, Hitler did do pre-emptive assaults.


Hussein constantly denied having nukes, so no, he did not claim they had weapons of mass destruction, in fact, quite the opposite. He just frustrated searches for them, making people believe they were there anyway. Why else frustrate? Could in retrospect simply have been ego, base reluctance to be inspected (pride and arrogance) and irritation.

Regarding Iraq, to say "some people died" is a bit of an understatement. After putting Iraq on the verge of civil war and with currently estimates between 106.000 and 116.000 civilian deaths due to destabilising the region and population power balance over night.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Most of these come from inter-sektarian and warlord militia violence. This type of violence was NOT present under Saddam Hussein (he did all the killing and political imprisonment himself). I'm not argueing the amount of freedom was greater or the current situation is worse, I can't really tell, tbh. From the looks of it, it improved in a lot of areas, but worsened in security.


So I'm stating the post-war policy of the Bush administration (especially the uncontrolled disbanding of the Iraqi national guard) is responsible for this. Which, is a direct consequence not of waging war, but of having no plan or idea for what came next. Particularly the incredibly stupidity of disbanding the Iraqi National Guard and with it basically creating both a large, combat trained disgruntled populace with no income and arming any group with a destabilising agenda that could abuse the power vaccuum (criminals, zealots, warlords, you name it).

And that is simply down to governmental shortsightedness, incompetence, lack of understanding of (and interest in?) the local situation and perhaps down to mere arrogance of "we'll fix it over night, they'll be transformed in democratic value loving people over night after they have been freed from tyrranny".


Plus, it would have been a much better reason and timing to remove Saddam Hussein during the Kuweit war. Nobody would have objected to the legitimacy of that. But no, US elections showed the hypocrisy of American foreign policy. The hypocrisy of supporting and condoning certain oppressive regimes as long as they are friendly towards the US or "stabilising" for the region. America often loses face through that hypocrisy. A lot of people believe America's only interested in preserving its own interests (and in doing so are not better than the USSR or China) and morality comes second to economic interest and political (world) power. Basically, when it's convenient, the democracy and "public outrage" card is pulled, but when it's not the US government looks away from uninteresting nations.

Basically, where would the US intervene? Rwanda or Middle East? Random poor populace genocide or dictator in control of oil threatening to not sell to the US in a time where oil resources becomes scarce and a certain country is the biggest consumer (and waster) of energy in the world?


What also annoys in general is that the US often does not conform to or participates in global treaties, despite being one of the main culprits to have the treaty signed. For instance, treaties regarding pollution and energy consumption, international law and other positive for the long term, worldwide initiatives. That creates resentment as well as strengthens the impression that the US is only interested in "#1" (economical self-interest with no regard for consequences).

And of course, the US often stampedes through porcelain cabinets despite of all that.

[Firefly]

The United States was the first Free Country which gave specfic rights to its people.
Look up Magna Carta. Then get back to me.

But there is that 18 month tour of duty american soldiers have to do. That may fuck with their heads somewhat, being stuck in a bloody hot country with no AC and being fired upon constantly.
I dont know about the other NATO nations but in Britain its only a 6 month ToD followed by at least a year off.
I did three of these tours as a soldier and one as a "contractor". I know guys who've done more than that. In all cases there were less than two months time off between tours except for the contractor gig after I ETS'd. You don't see my face on the news, pissing on dead combatants, forcing prisoners to stick their dick in some other prisoner's face, keeping ear necklaces, burning a Quran, shooting up innocent people, burning families alive, or other shenanigans. Why? Because I give a shit about human beings, even fuckers trying to kill me, even people of a foreign nation who just live there, even family members of fuckers trying to kill me. Why? Because I'm a professional. Why? Because that's how I was raised. And no amount of time in a combat zone will change that.

Maybe I'm better, or maybe I'm just not good enough. Maybe people who do this type of shit are stupid, damaged, or both. Or maybe stress got to them. I don't know. I don't have an answer.

[Vash02]

I'm not saying every soldier goes crazy, you only need one or two for it to explode on the news and fuck all the progress made.

[Firefly]

That's because society tends to focus on the bad, and not the good. The key word there is media. News is no longer responsible journalism - it's "news entertainment". Which makes it on par with Fox News.

[CutterJohn]

The way I see it, and by God the only way I'll ever see it; If I'M on the ground with known hositles in the area and I feel threatened in any possible fucking way. I will, one way or another, come home in one peace.

How very christian.

A far more sure survival tactic is not going in the first place. Its 100% effective at preventing troops from dying.

But I guess we only teach abstinence in sex ed nowadays.

[The Desert Fox]

Nevermind, its not worth the aruement.