Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on June 02, 2006, 11:06:59 am
-
Long story short, for those who don't know already: A Marine patrol in the town of Haditha gets blown up by an IED, one Marine is killed. The rest get pissed and take it out on the locals, going house-to-house and killing civilians. About 30 civilians are killed, all told. Now everyone is acting outraged and shocked, big scandal etc etc.
My thinking is: let's call a duck a duck. This is an occupation, and slaughtering civies is what occupations are all about. At least the successful ones. Probably one reason the Iraqis aren't as shocked by this is because they're going "no **** Sherlock, this happens every day and you're only now realizing it?". Winning "hearts and minds" it weak, deceptive bull****. The attutude of those Marines, whatever else you may say about them, was a lot more honest than that of the politicians. They realize that their power lies with the fact that they have guns, and as long as they have them they can do as they damn well please. If you don't want massacres, you shouldn't be in the occupation business. And if you already are, and are after victory, than toss all that civilized "nation-building" crap to the side and face up to what is going on.
The War Nerd, always an entertaining and informative read, says "Bribe'em, Nuke'em or Just Leave'em the Hell Alone! (http://www.exile.ru/2006-June-02/massacres_babies_and_nukes.html), and I would tend to agree.
-
Well, I'm not certain how accurate the report on it all is, theres 2 very strong opposing opinions reagrding it, but I'm inclined to agree, if you start a War, expect War to happen, it ain't pretty, living in the fairy lala land of 'Bringing Democracy to Iraq' has pretty much played out now and is finally changing to 'where's our ****ing spoils?', which is, quite frankly what the war was about. Good or Bad, I don't know, it's War, they aren't designed to be a socially acceptable past-time, or a way of making friends.
-
I'm sort of in the process of waiting and seeing exactly what happened, but I think it's inevitable we will see a My Lai-style event in Iraq due to the continuing breakdown of that country and the US' overstretched forces leading to more and more inexperienced soldiers being sent.
(NB: I say US troops because they control the majority of the country and the hotspots, and are thus most likely; obviously you could see this type of event from any nation there, but it does require a degree of pressure which the US have heaped onto themselves more than others)
-
I agree with you all when you say that it was inevitable given all the circumstances, but it's NOT how a well run occupation, that holds the aim of creating an ally out of the country in question, works. Sure it hard to do, and maybe the culture difference makes it near to impossible, but just look at Germany end WW2. They we in no way as receptive initially to the Allies occupation as the Iraqis were and that turned out about as well as it possibly could.
Fair nuff, essentially the USA can do what it pleases but this kind of treatment will eventually lead to the US being forcibly ejected from the country (unless they erradicate the native population) and increase the chance for september 11th scale reprisal attacks 100 fold.
And thats if they don't try military strikes on Iran. I don't think even the Bush administration could be that stupid, but then I havr said that before. If that happens Iran will put everything they have into aquiring nukes.
-
Considering the rhetoric and artificial timetables Bush is creating (even Iran when making their estimates look good is still years from viable nuclear weapons) I wouldn't be surprised if he tried a war as a 'glory move' to try to raise opinion/make a legacy/screw up the dems as much as he can.
I truly, deeply, hope that he does. A few people snapped awake from Iraq, and a few more will from Iran. Just enough to make a difference.
One of the major problems here is the absolute lack of care towards understanding who is being conquered. With WW2 a lot of research went into the Japanese mindset towards the end of the war in order to figure out the best plans of action. If such research even occured, which I highly doubt from what I've seen and read it would likely be sub-par due to the administration only using think tanks that confirm their preconceived ideas.
"Oh yes, everyone will be united against Saddam. Oh no, don't worry about the Shi'ite (WTF was with the swap to 'Shia' too many giggles?) v.s. Sunni v.s. Kurds v.s. former Baathists v.s. secular liberal reformers. (we want those everywhere in the world but the US it seems...)
-
"Oh yes, everyone will be united against Saddam. Oh no, don't worry about the Shi'ite (WTF was with the swap to 'Shia' too many giggles?) v.s. Sunni v.s. Kurds v.s. former Baathists v.s. secular liberal reformers. (we want those everywhere in the world but the US it seems...)
I don't know about Bush, but a few weeks (IIRC) before the invasion Blair invited a bunch of Middle Eastern specialists (academics knowledgable of the history, culture, etc) to Downing Street to discuss the consequences of a war. They explicitly warned him of the sectarian divisions and the likelihood of this sort of anarchy and civil war, and he flat out ignored them. I think both governments (US, UK) almost certainly sought out experts, who predicted exactly this, and who were promptly ignored because it wasn't 'on message'.
Hell, even I warned that the war would be the easy part of this before it had even began, and I'm scarcely an astute observer of the history of the Middle East. That no-one realised the fundamental difficulties and problems in this strategy and in the aftermath, simply beggers belief - how incompetent would you have to be not to see these problems lying ahead?
-
See, I don't think it was necessarily doomed from the get-go. The sectarian division could have been taken care of, if the planning had gone off better. Personally I think the Iranians, if they were smart, had a hand in driving the wedge apart, though all three factions helped in widening the rift. Becuase if the US gets everyone to sit down and make peace and build a strong, central government which can maintain order, and Iraq basically ends up a success, it doesn't bode well for the world. If they come out of this with a victory, they will be emboldened to intervene in other places, and will cite Iraq as a great achievement. Sort of like what happened with Kosovo. It sounds harsh, but it's better for the world if Iraq remains a bloody warzone, because this will make the US think long and hard before pulling another invasion, at least for a decade or two. I'm convinced that the only way to get the US (and not only them, but all interventionist powers...EU I'm looking at you) to leave everyone alone is to make the business of intervention as bloody, painful and costly as possible.
-
No need to worry about troops involved in massacres, the US Military always investigates fully and punish them accordingly... or will they (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5042036.stm)
-
No need to worry about troops involved in massacres, the US Military always investigates fully and punish them accordingly... or will they (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5042036.stm)
I always find the apologism and weird... enthusiasm surrounding military weird, alien and to be honest quite disgusting. One of the worst aspects is the "oh well sure the military will take care of it themselves no need for an external inspection". I always trust the people in some tight-knit society to judge their fellows more just and effectively than someone with no personal feelings towards the perperators.
Yeah, let the military control military - that ought to work really well right. After the entire Abu Ghraib thing the first order from the high-ups was to limit and effectively ban the digicam cellphones. This was because they want... umm.. evidence... umm... uhh
-
and will cite Iraq as a great achievement
Then again they cited Afghanistan as a "great achievement" before they went into Iraq. We all know how much of mess that country is still in. Maybe not as bad as Iraq, but not exactly a poster child of "regime change" either.
-
Then again they cited Afghanistan as a "great achievement" before they went into Iraq. We all know how much of mess that country is still in. Maybe not as bad as Iraq, but not exactly a poster child of "regime change" either.
But Afganistan is a "great achievement" for the US. They went in, threw around a lot of explosives, established a puppet government that's a lot friendlier to US "needs", and they moved on. See that last bit? They moved on, as in they're no longer conducting major operations within the nation, that's a f***ing achievment right there, that is.
-
Then again they cited Afghanistan as a "great achievement" before they went into Iraq. We all know how much of mess that country is still in. Maybe not as bad as Iraq, but not exactly a poster child of "regime change" either.
But Afganistan is a "great achievement" for the US. They went in, threw around a lot of explosives, established a puppet government that's a lot friendlier to US "needs", and they moved on. See that last bit? They moved on, as in they're no longer conducting major operations within the nation, that's a f***ing achievment right there, that is.
Except the government has bugger all power outside Kabul and there are still a bunch of UK/US/NATO (I think) forces involved in combat duties.
Sad thing is, Afghanistan was kind of an opportunity. The US only really needed to provide support to the existing rebellion, there were known terrorist camps (even if they tended to be domestic - i.e. revolutionary - rather than international terrorists, hence why so many died) and - the thing they should have done - there was an opportunity to take the shell of a country (unlike Iraq, a shell that you could blame on the Soviets and Taliban rather than US sanctions) and build it into something, well, 1st world. I figured, yeah, let the US take its pound of flesh, but then actually build something good and worthwhile behind it, an honest, free, country with a rebuilt infrastructure.
God, I must have been really naive.
-
But if they had succeeded in doing that, the thinking in Washington would have been "Wow, look how easily we got what we wanted and helped those poor, backward towel-heads. And everyone loves us for it. We should do this more often!"
While it is in theory possible to go in and do "nation-building" purely to the benefit of the locals, it never happens that way. Regardless of whether the given goal is to kill us some ter'rists or to lift up the poor, uncivilized masses from their suffering, it's still unwarranted interference and if it ends on a happy note than you can bet your ass that there will be more of it. Imperialism isn't interfering with bad intentions, it's interfering at all. Even if the US had the will (ha!) and the way (ha!) to turn Afghanistan into a prosperous, democratic nation, they still have no authority or mandate to do so.
Which is why I said that, from a global perspective, it's better if Iraq and Afghanistan end up as costly, embarassing mistakes. That'll keep the US finger of the trigger for a few years at least.
-
Tell that to post war Germany Rictor.
While I agree that the US was idiotic to go into Iraq with no exit plan I'd rather see the US going in and doing things right than everyone living in abject misery. My issue is not with interventionism but the fact that the US hasn't had a ****ing clue on how to do it properly since Germany and Japan.
-
That's different, because the US destroyed those places in a legitimate war. The initial reason for war was not to help the German and Japanese people who were suffering, but to prevent Hitler from taking over Europe and beyond. Besides, the context was entirely different than it is today.
If you think that the fact that Country X is poor, undemocratic and corrupt is enough to take the place over and run it as a protectorate until they see things your way, then that would leave about 60% of the world's nations as legitimate targets for "regime change". If you set out to "help" the world, even when they obviously don't want it, the result of that, regardless of the intentions (which are almost never altrustic to begin with), is usually just as bad as if you had set out to **** them up.
Surely you must see how dangerous that logic is. Because all you need to to is say a few sentences about how it's helping the poor and oppressed, and every imperial intervention suddenly gets a bright, shiny coat of legitimacy. Take for example Iran. The arguement could be made, with sufficient spin, that they are living under an inhumane, totalitarian regime that is universally despised and would welcome their liberation from the cruel, theocratic maniacs running the place. Except that's not true. That same arguement could be made and sustained, with the help of spin and selective information, about several dozen other nations. But does that make it OK to attack them and impose what you believe to be a better way of life? Emphasis on the words "you believe".
-
I think you missed my point. The US hasn't had a clue how to intervene nor even when to intervene (i.e probably the most legitimate one in the last 40 years was Rwanda which they actually missed).
However I refuse to agree to a policy that national borders are sacrosanct and tin pot dictators can do what the hell they like within their own borders and it's the little brown people's own fault for not being born in the west. However this sort of job should be the province of a properly working UN not the current system we have now.
-
However this sort of job should be the province of a properly working UN not the current system we have now.
:nod:
While it is in theory possible to go in and do "nation-building" purely to the benefit of the locals, it never happens that way
But they didn't even try to rebuild it. Bush publicly stated that the US was not into nation-building, yet he ended up giving out hundreds of millions, if not several billion dollars worth of no-bid contracts for "nation-building" in Iraq.
-
Which were then immediately placed in the bank accounts of the companies involved who said "Thanks very much" and then carried on doing what they had been doing before.
-
Who can fathom how that guys mind works.
-
I'm disgusted to say it, but the EU is looking more and more like the horse to bet on every day.
-
We can still tryand bring the Empire back.........."crosses fingers for luck"
-
Neither our political parties or the general population have the balls for such an idea.
-
DAngit, Stoopidparlimentarians. If only another civil war would kick off, They always do the UK some good....
-
While I do agree that countries unde leaders such as Sadam should be helped there is a big diference in gooing there for good of the people and gooing there for economical rasons. Oh and regarding the whole ocupation sloghtering civilians stuff and someone I think said it seems normal then whi the hell did the Allies fight the nazies in ww2 . How is the US any different from other maniacs out there? No matter what reason you can not go around shooting unarmed civilians.
Also why disgusted by the EU???
-
But they didn't even try to rebuild it. Bush publicly stated that the US was not into nation-building, yet he ended up giving out hundreds of millions, if not several billion dollars worth of no-bid contracts for "nation-building" in Iraq.
It wasn't actually spent on such archaic things as building, though.
-
Well actualy now US companies hold major contracts in all departments regarding the irakian rebuilding. From building public roades to railroad's to oil refineries.
If this is the kind of reconstruction Bush had in mind then I rest mi case this was nothing more then a hunt for irakian oil reserbes and money from the exploitation of its oil.
-
Well actualy now US companies hold major contracts in all departments regarding the irakian rebuilding. From building public roades to railroad's to oil refineries.
If this is the kind of reconstruction Bush had in mind then I rest mi case this was nothing more then a hunt for irakian oil reserbes and money from the exploitation of its oil.
But it would seem these contractors certainly paid heed to Bush's "not into nation-building" thing, instead choosing to spend the money on much more worthwhile things like tailoring for said contractors, namely the pocket-lining if i'm not mistaken. :rolleyes:
-
Regardless of what the actual companies do the situation in Irak seem to be more about oil and whatvere you can get your hands on and profit then actualy bringig democracy to that state. Come to think of Romania actualy said they would forget about some debts that Irak had towards this country. Cant remeber exactly what sum of meny or what know so dont take this as acurate.
-
Oooooo, the Romanians...... :p
-
:lol:
-
What's that suposd to mean?? The total debt's that Romania has to colect from other countryes is something like severeal blion dolars. This may not be much to a state like the US or the UK or Germany or whaetever but for a small country like this such a debt rpresents quite a lot of money.
-
Also why disgusted by the EU???
Corruption. Extravagance at the expense of the tax payer. An increasingly centralised system of government. Three good enough reasons to be upset already...
Edit: Plus I'm British - I have this whole thing about wanting our imperial real estate back... :nervous:
-
Also why disgusted by the EU???
Corruption. Extravagance at the expense of the tax payer. An increasingly centralised system of government. Three good enough reasons to be upset already...
you could almost be describing Westminister, there.......
-
Yes but at least I can go down the road and lynch them should the mood take me...
-
Yes but at least I can go down the road and lynch them should the mood take me...
Well, not really (for example, the current government got less votes total than when John Major lost the election). Pretty much every 'democratic' institution is ****ed nowadays, might as well point that out. We're screwed either way.
-
Also why disgusted by the EU???
Corruption. Extravagance at the expense of the tax payer. An increasingly centralised system of government. Three good enough reasons to be upset already...
Edit: Plus I'm British - I have this whole thing about wanting our imperial real estate back... :nervous:
Hear Hear!!!!!
We didnt beat the normans back, and etc<insert 5 hour ramble> to become part of the EU,
Its a Unitied Kingdom, people forget that, Kingdoms are meant to be independantly run.
-
:lol:
Well, we can't have a New World Order until we've gone through the New World Chaos apparently. It's human nature, I think.
-
Hmm, New world Chaos, (steals concept and puts it in his "stolen pocket")
-
Also why disgusted by the EU???
Corruption. Extravagance at the expense of the tax payer. An increasingly centralised system of government. Three good enough reasons to be upset already...
Edit: Plus I'm British - I have this whole thing about wanting our imperial real estate back... :nervous:
Hear Hear!!!!!
We didnt beat the normans back, and etc<insert 5 hour ramble> to become part of the EU,
Its a Unitied Kingdom, people forget that, Kingdoms are meant to be independantly run.
WHERE IS YOUR KING NOW
-
Hear Hear!!!!!
We didnt beat the normans back, and etc<insert 5 hour ramble> to become part of the EU,
Its a Unitied Kingdom, people forget that, Kingdoms are meant to be independantly run.
Like the Kingdom of Scotland?
-
Ooooooliver Cromwell, Lord Protectorate of England (and his warts)
Born 1599 died 1658 (September)
;)
And, oddly enough, buried, exhumed, publically displayed for treason and then the body vanished.
We really know how to treat our leaders ;)
-
He deserved it too.
Now if we only did that to our fundies.