We're not #1!

[mpjh]

The rest of the world was in an anti-communist and anti-Semitic slumber waiting for Hitler to solve their problem by doing in the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately for them, Hitler went the other way.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not entirely sure you can say that the position of the US was to only intervene when it's direct interest was involved, you have to remember that Roosevelt was a Democrat of an Interventionist WIlsonian tradition, and it's entirely plausible that both he and indeed to a lesser degree Wilson intervened because they were genuinely concerned about the fate of oppressed peoples.

Then why did they take so much time?

.

Why did anyone? Where was the rest of the free world during the Abyssinian War, Anschluss, and Czechoslovakia?

Not there for the same reasons. Just because people may have cared about it doesn't mean they would've done anything about it.

[Snorri1234]

1) Regardless of whether or not a person agrees with the war in Iraq (and a lot of folks in the military don't), the simple fact of the matter is that without a military the United States would fall. You could join the Navy, get stationed on a ship, and never fire a weapon and you would still be "defending America" because you are part of that force which prevents attacks just by existing. On the flip side, you could join the Marines, get stationed in Iraq, and never fire a round in anger on American soil and you will still be defending America for the very same reason. Whether or not you agree with the various foreign wars America is currently in, the basic fact of the matter is that without the military America would fall, and for those who don't want to see America fall, joining is a noble pursuit.

I don't really disagree with the fact that America would fall if there was no military. But I believe that if there were no recruits the focus for a military would go back to defending the homeland.

Ofcourse, that will never happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. A military might be neccesary, but no a military in the current form it is in.

2) All officers are required to take courses in "leadership and ethics" and read quite a bit of literature on the matter. Your cynicism about those in power is duly noted, but given that officers are required to essentially take philosophy courses leads me to believe that what can be done is being done. The battlefield is a very mentally stressful environment so atrocities happen, but precautions are taken. Even if you're a cynic you'd have to concede that the government doesn't want atrocities to happen, it's very bad PR and tactically disadvantageous in a war for hearts and minds as this one is.

I concede that normally the government doesn't wnat atrocities to happen, but the Bush-administration does not seem to care about them so that means a government can still allow or at least permit atrocities.

There are few atrocities that happen (at least, ignoring that war itself is an atrocity) but most of those that do happen could have been prevented had there been more control. And that control could have been there if the focus on it was bigger. Most soldiers and officers do just fine and seem to have the best of intents, but some don't and those can abuse the military and it's rank-structure.

3) You seem to be assuming that soldiers and Marines who follow "suicidal orders" are mindless robots. I can guarantee that they are not, because hundreds have proven to be willing to do suicidal things in combat without being ordered to. Men who jump on grenades to save their buddies, medics & corpsmen who run out into the open to grab a wounded comrade... there are hundreds of cases like this and many more which go unaccounted for.

Yeah, but that's a case of willingly doing suicidal things instead of being ordered. I know there are plenty of soldiers and marines who give their lives for a cause they believe in, and I respect and honor them for it, I just think the bigger cause that led them there is silly and misguided.

And a military who gives suicidal orders is a mad one. which is the reason for my earlier rant. I do not think the soldiers are mindless drones, but they should recognise that their leaders don't always have their best interest in mind. If they see that and still join, well okay for them I guess, but plenty of new recruits seem to not know it.

I'm a little peeved at your portrayal of soldiers and Marines as brainless souless idiots who have no regard for their own lives or anyone else's. It's not the case. Any Marine ordered to do something dangerous is scared, nervous, and excited. Those are the same emotions you would feel in the same situation. What motivates them to get it done isn't some brainwashing conditioning, it's a feeling of obligation to his friends who are counting on him to do his job so they don't get hurt or killed.

If I've gave of the impression that soldiers and marines are brainless soulless idiots I apoligise. I do not doubt their bravery and soul, or their commitment to their fellows.

But all I actually called stupid was the initial decision to join the military. That one where someone signs up. Later on ofcourse there are plenty of reasons why they do what they do. They feel obligated to protect their friends, they think that since they've signed up they might as well try to do something good, etcetera.

But the decision to join still doesn't warrant any respect from me. Respect should be earned, and soldiers and marines who sacrifice themselves for their friends or for innocent strangers earn it. But just being in the military shouldn't give you any respect. I don't expect you to have any respect for me either since you don't know anything about me, so why are soldiers different.

[OnlyAmbrose]

And a military who gives suicidal orders is a mad one. which is the reason for my earlier rant. I do not think the soldiers are mindless drones, but they should recognise that their leaders don't always have their best interest in mind. If they see that and still join, well okay for them I guess, but plenty of new recruits seem to not know it.

Define suicidal order? Sure, in hindsight it's easy to see that the tactics of WWI were ridiculous, but you had commanders from the days when close order drill was a combat tactic commanding troops against technologies of a new century. Does that make them mad, or stupid? I wouldn't say so, it's a product of the times.

Any order in combat could be perceived as a suicidal one. A squad leader orders a fire team to assault a position. "Wait, the guys over there have guns! They could shoot me! I could be killed! That's suicidal!" That kind of thinking can't happen on the battlefield or people WILL get killed.

Tactics evolve, times change, but most commanders in the field have their troops close to their heart. Marine leaders do anyways. The most prevalent lesson in my officer training thus far has been "your primary responsibility is to take care of your Marines." Everything we do boils down to that. At indoc I forgot to shave one night. "What, you forgot to shave Midshipman? You gonna forget to request ammo when you're out in the fleet? You gonna forget to get your Marines to the chow hall? You gonna lead hungry Marines into battle with no ammo, Midshipman? You're gonna get Marines killed, that's what you're gonna do!"

Maybe what's frustrating me is that you don't seem to get how the US military, works, how we're trained, what we're taught. That Marines have superiors who don't care about them is a lie. Caring about Marines is the lesson which above all others is repeated every day.

But the decision to join still doesn't warrant any respect from me. Respect should be earned, and soldiers and marines who sacrifice themselves for their friends or for innocent strangers earn it. But just being in the military shouldn't give you any respect.

I don't think anyone in the military would disagree with you on that.

Well, respect is shown to rank and such but extraordinary respect is certainly what you described.

[Snorri1234]

Define suicidal order? Sure, in hindsight it's easy to see that the tactics of WWI were ridiculous, but you had commanders from the days when close order drill was a combat tactic commanding troops against technologies of a new century. Does that make them mad, or stupid? I wouldn't say so, it's a product of the times.

I am certain that the soldiers themselves realised what they were doing was suicidal. That's what led to people shooting themselves in the foot or chopping of their hand.

And the commanders did realise that a large number of their troops were shot every time for very little gain. Either they were completely barking mad or they just didn't care.

Any order in combat could be perceived as a suicidal one. A squad leader orders a fire team to assault a position. "Wait, the guys over there have guns! They could shoot me! I could be killed! That's suicidal!" That kind of thinking can't happen on the battlefield or people WILL get killed.

True. But there is a difference between "i could get killed" and "I will get killed". Suicidal missions are the latter one. Going through the most dangerous piece of dessert with unarmoured vehicles is quite a different thing from taking out a small number of opposition with full body armour and better guns.

Tactics evolve, times change, but most commanders in the field have their troops close to their heart. Marine leaders do anyways. The most prevalent lesson in my officer training thus far has been "your primary responsibility is to take care of your Marines." Everything we do boils down to that. At indoc I forgot to shave one night. "What, you forgot to shave Midshipman? You gonna forget to request ammo when you're out in the fleet? You gonna forget to get your Marines to the chow hall? You gonna lead hungry Marines into battle with no ammo, Midshipman? You're gonna get Marines killed, that's what you're gonna do!"

Maybe what's frustrating me is that you don't seem to get how the US military, works, how we're trained, what we're taught. That Marines have superiors who don't care about them is a lie. Caring about Marines is the lesson which above all others is repeated every day.

I am not saying that every superior doesn't care about his troops. Hell, even commanders have risked their jobs telling Bush that they needed more men to succesfully invade Iraq.
But there have been too many cases of non-caring in history (usually by government-officials with little to no military experience) for someone to be very confident that their leaders care about them. Or, to put it better, that the leaders care about their troops does not mean they will always act in their best interest.

But the decision to join still doesn't warrant any respect from me. Respect should be earned, and soldiers and marines who sacrifice themselves for their friends or for innocent strangers earn it. But just being in the military shouldn't give you any respect.

I don't think anyone in the military would disagree with you on that.

Well, respect is shown to rank and such but extraordinary respect is certainly what you described.

Sure, there is a thing to be said for respect to rank. But my gripe is more of a reaction to what I frequently see on the internet. i.e., if someone mentions they have served or are serving (without any mention of what they did or their rank) they always get comments thanking them for their service and so on.

It's not like I have any dislike of people in service, but I just don't understand why (and this goes mostly for the US) it immediatly means you should respect them. (Though I doubt the soldiers or marines themselves demand it.) Then again, I have the same problem with loads of things. If someone tells me they're a doctor I don't go "ooho, a doctor". (Ofcourse, that could have something to do with me being in medschool and having a family of doctors.) I give respect to people based on their actions and not their profession or whatever.


(Also, I didn't know you were with the marines. When did you start?)

[DaGip]

I found something Americans are Number one at!

http://www.sockandawe.com/

[OnlyAmbrose]

Sure, there is a thing to be said for respect to rank. But my gripe is more of a reaction to what I frequently see on the internet. i.e., if someone mentions they have served or are serving (without any mention of what they did or their rank) they always get comments thanking them for their service and so on.

And I'm not griping about you having a problem with the instant "respect" military people get. I seriously don't give a f*ck. What I AM griping about are comments like "anyone who enlists is an idiot." That's not just not giving someone respect, that's showing complete and utter disrespect, and I have an issue with that.

Though it seems like you've toned down the rhetoric to a reasonable level, and you have my thanks for that.

[Napoleon Ier]

You have his thanks for it snorrarse.

But he could still kill you with two fingers on his left hand if he felt like it.

This is important to remember.

[Snorri1234]

Sure, there is a thing to be said for respect to rank. But my gripe is more of a reaction to what I frequently see on the internet. i.e., if someone mentions they have served or are serving (without any mention of what they did or their rank) they always get comments thanking them for their service and so on.

And I'm not griping about you having a problem with the instant "respect" military people get. I seriously don't give a f*ck. What I AM griping about are comments like "anyone who enlists is an idiot." That's not just not giving someone respect, that's showing complete and utter disrespect, and I have an issue with that.

Though it seems like you've toned down the rhetoric to a reasonable level, and you have my thanks for that.

To be fair I was being a bit hyperbolic. Idiot is a little too strong of a word, I was just a litle pissed at the time. (And quite drunk too.) Idiot probably sounds disrespectfull, but it really wasnt my intent. I call people idiots all the time, without actually meaning disrespect. Hell, if everyone I've called an idiot takes it as disrespect I've probably disrespected the entire world, including myself.

[got tonkaed]

I keep trying to make a long post in this thread about something or other, but i keep deciding i havent said it right yet. So be on the look out for that.

[mpjh]

Sure, there is a thing to be said for respect to rank. But my gripe is more of a reaction to what I frequently see on the internet. i.e., if someone mentions they have served or are serving (without any mention of what they did or their rank) they always get comments thanking them for their service and so on.

And I'm not griping about you having a problem with the instant "respect" military people get. I seriously don't give a f*ck. What I AM griping about are comments like "anyone who enlists is an idiot." That's not just not giving someone respect, that's showing complete and utter disrespect, and I have an issue with that.

Though it seems like you've toned down the rhetoric to a reasonable level, and you have my thanks for that.

To be fair I was being a bit hyperbolic. Idiot is a little too strong of a word, I was just a litle pissed at the time. (And quite drunk too.) Idiot probably sounds disrespectfull, but it really wasnt my intent. I call people idiots all the time, without actually meaning disrespect. Hell, if everyone I've called an idiot takes it as disrespect I've probably disrespected the entire world, including myself.

I used the term idiot also, but not for those that enlist, rather for those that lead them in a futile exercise and do not have the courage to stand up to the commander in chief and say "you are wrong and I am not executing in illegal order." Our leaders in Afghanistan have lead our troops in ridiculous, idiot exercises that have not captured or killed the intended target, have failed to pacified the country, have not removed the enemy Al Qaeda from the field, and have lost the support of the American people. I really don't think there are words strong enough to describe the abject failure of these leaders.

[Snorri1234]

Sure, there is a thing to be said for respect to rank. But my gripe is more of a reaction to what I frequently see on the internet. i.e., if someone mentions they have served or are serving (without any mention of what they did or their rank) they always get comments thanking them for their service and so on.

And I'm not griping about you having a problem with the instant "respect" military people get. I seriously don't give a f*ck. What I AM griping about are comments like "anyone who enlists is an idiot." That's not just not giving someone respect, that's showing complete and utter disrespect, and I have an issue with that.

Though it seems like you've toned down the rhetoric to a reasonable level, and you have my thanks for that.

To be fair I was being a bit hyperbolic. Idiot is a little too strong of a word, I was just a litle pissed at the time. (And quite drunk too.) Idiot probably sounds disrespectfull, but it really wasnt my intent. I call people idiots all the time, without actually meaning disrespect. Hell, if everyone I've called an idiot takes it as disrespect I've probably disrespected the entire world, including myself.

I used the term idiot also, but not for those that enlist, rather for those that lead them in a futile exercise and do not have the courage to stand up to the commander in chief and say "you are wrong and I am not executing in illegal order." Our leaders in Afghanistan have lead our troops in ridiculous, idiot exercises that have not captured or killed the intended target, have failed to pacified the country, have not removed the enemy Al Qaeda from the field, and have lost the support of the American people. I really don't think there are words strong enough to describe the abject failure of these leaders.

Well yeah the leaders. But even when I'm calling Bush and his friends evil dickwads I get accused of flaming when all I'm really doing is stating facts.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm calling Bush and his friends evil dickwads.

Wow-hold your horses there cowboy! Controversial! Way to rebel there, tigah! You're, you're, I mean you're out there man. That's brave. That's a real display of political courage, I must say...

[Snorri1234]

I'm calling Bush and his friends evil dickwads.

Wow-hold your horses there cowboy! Controversial! Way to rebel there, tigah! You're, you're, I mean you're out there man. That's brave. That's a real display of political courage, I must say...

The fact that I said "all I'm really doing is stating facts" should've tipped you off that I wasn't being controversial.



Then again, I suppose you haven't read the thread.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh, you're a comedian as well are you?

[mpjh]

Yeah Snorri is one funny guy.

[Aradhus]

The US government is number 1 when it comes to funding terrorist organisations, which is ironic since they've spent the past 7 years fighting "the war on terror".

[joe cool 360]

The US government is number 1 when it comes to funding terrorist organisations, which is ironic since they've spent the past 7 years fighting "the war on terror".

Please list all the times that the U.S. funded terrorist organizations and under what circumstances.
(I don't doubt that America has, I just want to see what you think)

[mpjh]

For one, we fund military operations in Columbia, train their death squads, and turn a blind eye when they "disappear" their own people. State terrorism.

Similarly. we funded the military operations of Pinochet in Argentina, which engaged in precisely the same state terrorism.

We funded, through Israel, Hamas in its early days when we were trying to undercut the PLO.

We provided military support to the Philippine army in its terrorist campaign against the Muslim forces trying to gain autonomy in the Philippines. The Philippine army killed innocent civilians indiscriminately trying to terrorise the movement into submission.

During the war in Viet Nam we funded and executed Operation Phoenix, which was a program of assassinations of Vietnamese people, trying to terrorize the resistance into submission. It failed.

The United States Army engaged in a program to kill off all Bison in the western plains and thus eliminate the chief protein source for plains Native Americans, then when subdued the US Armn provided small pox laden blankets to the captives, killing off a large number of innocent women and children. That is terroism.

There are more examples, if you want.

[spurgistan]

For one, we fund military operations in Columbia, train their death squads, and turn a blind eye when they "disappear" their own people. State terrorism.

Similarly. we funded the military operations of Pinochet in Argentina, which engaged in precisely the same state terrorism.

We funded, through Israel, Hamas in its early days when we were trying to undercut the PLO.

We provided military support to the Philippine army in its terrorist campaign against the Muslim forces trying to gain autonomy in the Philippines. The Philippine army killed innocent civilians indiscriminately trying to terrorise the movement into submission.

During the war in Viet Nam we funded and executed Operation Phoenix, which was a program of assassinations of Vietnamese people, trying to terrorize the resistance into submission. It failed.

The United States Army engaged in a program to kill off all Bison in the western plains and thus eliminate the chief protein source for plains Native Americans, then when subdued the US Armn provided small pox laden blankets to the captives, killing off a large number of innocent women and children. That is terrorism.

There are more examples, if you want.

Uhhh, terrorists didn't do that stuff, we did. The United States of America. Get your facts straight.

[mpjh]

Same thing.

[joe cool 360]

Colombia death squads:
Why we funded them – to keep cocaine from being produced there and from entering the U.S.
What went wrong – the money went to “death squads”
What we’ve done about it – cut funding (with the likely possibility of eliminating it altogether)

Hamas:
Why we funded them – to undercut the PLO (lesser of two weevils)
What went wrong – Hamas also wants jihad and all that jazz
What we’ve done about it – now that PLO is out the window, we’re against Hamas

Philippine war against Muslims:
Why we funded them – To prevent the spread of terrorism
What went wrong – the Philippino citizens began committing acts of terrorism
What we’ve done about it – we’ve increased funding to the Philippines*

Operation Phoenix:
Why we funded/ did it – to eliminate key members of the NLF in an attempt to keep them from eliminating people of South Vietnam
What went wrong – it didn’t work very well in the long run and was unethical
What we’ve done about it – outlawed assassinations

US killing of Native Americans and Bison:
Why we did it – to kill the Indians
What went wrong – it’s unethical
What we’ve done about it – stopped killing Indians, provide them with numerous government grants and jobs

*Why we’ve increased military funding to the Philippines – there’s a pretty major conflict going on down there, I know because I have a friend who lives down there. In addition, we’ve noticed the human rights violations and have told them that we will not increase aid any more until it is investigated.
(A slap on the wrist, I know)

So, what does all this say?
It says the U.S. is a country made up of fallible humans who will ignore atrocities on account of self-interest. However, we have tried to make up for past injustices and set things right, does it mean we are perfect? Of course not. Does it mean we are striving to be better? I think so.
This was a very cursory examination of the events you brought up, if someone has a more in-depth summary of one or more of these events, please share.

[mpjh]

Colombia death squads:
Why we funded them – to keep cocaine from being produced there and from entering the U.S.
What went wrong – the money went to “death squads”
What we’ve done about it – cut funding (with the likely possibility of eliminating it altogether)

Truth: We haven't stopped, and the Columbian army is still assassinating innocents. the most recent example is the killing of young male children from poor communities and dressing them up as insurgents to get body count.

Hamas:
Why we funded them – to undercut the PLO (lesser of two weevils)
What went wrong – Hamas also wants jihad and all that jazz
What we’ve done about it – now that PLO is out the window, we’re against Hamas

Truth: We are against Hamas, the properly elected government of the Palestinian people. We supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and the destruction of that country's infrastructure as well a hundreds of innocents to kill off Hamas. We support Israels blockade of Gaza. This blockage keeps food and medicine from innocent civilians in Gaza, a terrorist technique as well as a method of "group punishment" outlawed under international law.

Philippine war against Muslims:
Why we funded them – To prevent the spread of terrorism
What went wrong – the Philippino citizens began committing acts of terrorism
What we’ve done about it – we’ve increased funding to the Philippines*

Truth: We supported, funded, the Philippine army's killing of civilians who had no military contact. A terrorist act.

Operation Phoenix:
Why we funded/ did it – to eliminate key members of the NLF in an attempt to keep them from eliminating people of South Vietnam
What went wrong – it didn’t work very well in the long run and was unethical
What we’ve done about it – outlawed assassinations

Truth: We killed innocent civilians turned in by people jealous of their success or just because they didn't like them. There were no trials, no investigation, and no due process. We simply took whomever we wanted dead to a side street and shot them in the head -- unharmed civilians. This is nothing but terrorism.

US killing of Native Americans and Bison:
Why we did it – to kill the Indians
What went wrong – it’s unethical
What we’ve done about it – stopped killing Indians, provide them with numerous government grants and jobs

Truth: We have not stopped. We still steal the resources of the reservations leaving most native Americans destitute. The government refuses to give an accounting of the billions in timber, oil, uranium, and grassing land that have been stolen from the reservation Indians. In fact, the assimilation program in which we took young children away from their families, beat them for speaking their own language, and tried to make them act "white" ended only in the 1970s. No restitution has been paid.

*Why we’ve increased military funding to the Philippines – there’s a pretty major conflict going on down there, I know because I have a friend who lives down there. In addition, we’ve noticed the human rights violations and have told them that we will not increase aid any more until it is investigated.
(A slap on the wrist, I know)

Truth: There is no excuse for supporting terrorism on civilians, which is what the Philippine army engages in using our funding.

So, what does all this say?
It says the U.S. is a country made up of fallible humans who will ignore atrocities on account of self-interest. However, we have tried to make up for past injustices and set things right, does it mean we are perfect? Of course not. Does it mean we are striving to be better? I think so.
This was a very cursory examination of the events you brought up, if someone has a more in-depth summary of one or more of these events, please share.

[/quote]

Truth: We haven't stopped, and are not trying "to make up for past injustices and set things right." We continue to deny we did most of these things and support similar activity across the globe.

[Snorri1234]

Colombia death squads:
Why we funded them – to keep cocaine from being produced there and from entering the U.S.
What went wrong – the money went to “death squads”
What we’ve done about it – cut funding (with the likely possibility of eliminating it altogether)

Hamas:
Why we funded them – to undercut the PLO (lesser of two weevils)
What went wrong – Hamas also wants jihad and all that jazz
What we’ve done about it – now that PLO is out the window, we’re against Hamas

Philippine war against Muslims:
Why we funded them – To prevent the spread of terrorism
What went wrong – the Philippino citizens began committing acts of terrorism
What we’ve done about it – we’ve increased funding to the Philippines*

Ofcourse, these things could've easily been predicted.

[Napoleon Ier]

Sometimes, you need a little realpolitik to deal with geopolitical situations. Yeah, sure, it isn't always perfect, but frankly, what do you expect? Do you really think we should not fund whoever is immoral because of that fact? Sure, it would be lovely if we could: but guess what, my PC chum, we don't live in a happy world of rainbows and dancing elves and gay fairies and happy social workers and muslims living peacefully with their fellow man. We live in a brutal, dog-eat-dog, Darwinian world, and you have to sometimes accept and work within the parameters of that fact.

What otherwise do you do? Say that Reagan ought to have fought against the Taliban and the Soviets simultaneously? Say that Bush ought to invade half the Middle-East because it's currently under less-than-pleasant rulers? That FDR was wrong not to wage a war against Hitler and Stalin at once?

The reductio ad absurdum follows rather quickly.