America Supports You

Abuskedti

Jeremy2009 wrote:

I dont think it's necessary to point out what freedoms we have. We have so many ...my favorite is FREEDOM! I really didnt mean to start this thread to start a political war ...again. There is too much of that shit going on now already ...everywhere. It just seems that all I hear in the news on TV, radio and internet is all the negative things in the world. It doesnt matter what country your serving from UK, AUS, FRA, Kuwait. Those people do so much for the world and they should get so much more.

Yes, they should get much more.. but they don't .. in large part due to some of our "freedoms"..

we pay them shitty wages - and leave them alone and in poverty after they are finished - or wounded

But most of all, we don't give them respect - and abuse them - and place them in war without even the benefit of open honest consideration..

But we do have people now and then saying thanks, and somtimes going the extra mile with cute ribbon stickers on their new cars...

sapperskunk

MrBrian wrote:

If you do a search for "somalia" you should be able to find a couple threads about it, on one of them i posted an article. it should answer your lack of understanding on the issue.

nevertheless, ethiopia and the warlords in somalia are currently backed by america. bombs, missles, bullets and all. the same kind of warlords that brought down those helicopters are now holding hands with america.

you gonna answer my question?

ProvidenceHunter

MrBrian wrote:

Supporting the troops does not mean a yellow ribbon or a bumper sticker with a faded flag on the back, it means proper health care and benefits for the families of the soldiers. It means making sure they are taken care of.
It also means not scaring them with a prison sentance if they choose not to fight, what's the point of forcing someone to do something? the job will just be done incorrectly.

This is supporting the troops.

Supporting the troops means wanting them to win.

Supporting the troops means giving them the bennifit of the doubt instead of the enemy or Al Jazeera or CNN or Fox News or any other news agency that comes out with a story that automatically assumes the soldiers did something wrong.

Supporting the troops means realizing that they are part the best trained and most professional organization in the world, and that their job demands perfection, and while perfection in the performance of their duties is achieved most of the time, they do make mistakes.

Supporting the troops means understanding that these mistakes are rare and delt with when they occure.

Supporting the troops does not mean attacking the people with the yellow ribbons. And acting like you are the one who really supports them because you want better bennifits for them. Big deal, you think they should be paid better and have better health care, wow, way to step out on a limb and really support the soldiers.

Back to the bumperstickers. My mother has one on her truck. And if you saw the truck I bet you would roll your eyes and think to yourself "oh gawd, another brainless Bush supporter". But what you wouldn't realize it that her oldest son spent a year in Iraq and her second oldest son will probably be going within the next year.

Just think about that next time you see a yellow ribbon bumper sticker on someones car. It is probably a soldiers mother or wife or father or husband driving that car and the ribbon is more for them and their love for their family member and not a political statement.

As far as threatening prison sentances.
Civilians give up the choice if the want to fight or not when they take the oath that says "...I will obay the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me...". No one forces a person to join, in fact before the civilians are given the oath they are given plenty of chances to back out with out any consiquences. That is the last time they have the choice to fight or not.

You cannot baby soldiers and ask them nicely to do things they don't want to they have to be forced. There are plenty of things soldiers are forced to do that they don't want to do and these things still get done. And they are done correctly.

ThumbingMyWay32

MrBrian wrote:

If you do a search for "somalia" you should be able to find a couple threads about it, on one of them i posted an article. it should answer your lack of understanding on the issue.

nevertheless, ethiopia and the warlords in somalia are currently backed by america. bombs, missles, bullets and all. the same kind of warlords that brought down those helicopters are now holding hands with america.

lol If I give you a couple of cookies and a glass of milk will you come out?

MrBrian

perhaps too much how do you say it...asinus asinum fricat? going on in this thread.

I should leave and let the few of you enjoy yourselves.
----

sapperskunk

MrBrian wrote:

perhaps too much how do you say it...asinus asinum fricat? going on in this thread.

I should leave and let the few of you enjoy yourselves.
----

That works too, you just answered the question for me. Thanks, I get you now.

Hic puer est stultissimus omnium.

Purple Hawk

Nothingman54 wrote:

I dont support killers of any kind.

whether you like it or not, pacification IS support for killers.

gimmesometruth27

Purple Hawk wrote:

whether you like it or not, pacification IS support for killers.

i don't understand what you are getting at here. murder is murder whether in war or not. i choose not to support any of it.

what does it mean when you don't give a shit if people are murdered? does that somehow support killers as well?

Collin

I always felt that support and respect should be earned.

dunkman

Jeremy2009 wrote:

It doesnt matter what country your serving from UK, AUS, FRA, Kuwait. Those people do so much for the world and they should get so much more.

but the thread title is "America supports you"

I wish the family and friends of soldiers had them back... whatever nation they are from.

Why do americans go on about "freedoms" all the time... we had a film about one of our greatest freedom fighters made that won many Oscars... in fact Braveheart even shouts it all the time "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEEEDOOOMMMM!!!!"

and yet i never hear any Scottish people ever mention their "freedoms"... but Americans... fucking hell... :rolleyes: probably one of the most intrusive, restrictive, admin-heavy administrations in the Western World but the patriots all think they have multiple Freedoms... :rolleyes:

i'm bemused in an arrogant way

redrock

MrBrian wrote:

the same kind of warlords that brought down those helicopters are now holding hands with america.

Not just holding hands... one of them holds three posts in their government and is a naturalised american citizen...

Byrnzie

CorporateWhore wrote:

our boys in the military are a gift from God.

Tell that to the close on 1 million Iraqi men, women and children who have been killed by these freedom giving troops. The troops should never have been sent to Iraq in the first place. The only people they're benefiting are a handful of Texas oil men, Bush and his cronies, and Halliburton.
This war is bullshit.

Byrnzie

sapperskunk wrote:

And what about the history of the Army in terms of "rights"? I guess you got a problem with humanitarian missions too?

Name one humanitarian mission the U.S has ever engaged in.

Byrnzie

sapperskunk wrote:

So I take it your not a fan of the UN also? Balkans mission? Kosovo? Bosnia?

CBC Radio Interview Transcribed
April 16, 1999
Chomsky on Kosovo
http://home.cbc.ca/real/radio/news-audio/ram/aih990416.ram

MLF: Do you think that, by in large, you and we are getting a reasonably accurate picture of what is going on in this war?

NC: I think the reporters on the ground, many of them, are producing quite accurate stories: the way the framework and the interpretation handles the facts is another question. Inaccurate isn't the word for it, it is ludicrous.

MLF: Well tell us about that.

NC: This is presented, well I haven't read the Canadian media, but in the United States and what I've seen of Europe, its presented as an humanitarian endeavor, and that is repeated over and over. Well, if anything is obvious, it's the opposite, it cannot possibly be considered by a rational person as having humanitarian motives.

MLF: You don't believe that the reason for the NATO action was to rescue the Kosovo Albanians from oppression?

NC: It is virtually inconceivable on rational grounds and there are simple reasons for that. One reason is simply Kosovo itself. Up until the US/NATO bombing March 24th, there had been, according to NATO, 2000 people killed on all sides, and a couple of hundred thousand refugees. Well, that's bad, that's a humanitarian crises, but unfortunately it's the kind you can find all over the world. For example, it happens to be almost identical in numbers to what the state department describes as the last year in Colombia: 300,000 refugees, 2 or 3 thousand people killed, overwhelmed by the military forces and the para military associates, who the US arms, and in fact arms are going up. That' s the way the US, Britain and other countries act when there are humanitarian crises, namely they escalate them. Now, what happened in Kosovo, well in fact the same thing. There were options on March 23rd, and they chose an option which, predictably, changed the situation from a Colombia style crisis to maybe approaching a disaster, and that was a conscious choice. The effects? Let me quote the US/NATO commanding General, Wesley Clark: two days after the bombing he said it was "entirely predictable" that the reaction of the Serb army on the ground would be exactly as it was.

MLF: I must interject here and say that our own foreign Minister has said nobody foresaw the scale of Milosevic response.

NC: That's ridiculous, maybe they didn't foresee the exact scale, but when you bomb people they don't throw flowers at you. They react

MLF: Let me ask you what you think the motive was.

NC: One thing is that any kind of turbulence in the Balkans is what's called in technical terms a crisis. That means it can harm the interests of rich and powerful people. So if people are slaughtering each other in Sierra Leone, Colombia, Turkey, or whereever, that doesn't affect rich and powerful people very much, therefore they are glad either to just watch it, or even contribute to it, massively as in the case of Turkey or Colombia. But in the Balkans it's different, it can affect European interests and therefore US interests, so it becomes a crisis, any kind of turbulence. Then you want to quiet it down. Well, how do you do that? The US flatly refuses to allow the institutions of international order to be involved, so no UN, and that's pretty explicit. So they have to turn to NATO. Well, NATO the US dominates, so that's acceptable and then you turn to force. Why force? Well, several reasons, and here I think Clinton, Blair, and others have been pretty honest about it. The point that they reiterate over and over is that it is necessary to establish the credibility of NATO. Now all we have to do is translate from Newspeak. What does credibility of NATO mean? Are they concerned with the credibility of Italy or the credibility of Belgium? Obviously not. They are concerned with the credibility of the United States. Now what does the credibility of the United States mean? Well, you can ask any Mafia don, and he'll explain it. So, suppose some Mafia don is running some area in Chicago, what does he mean by credibility? He means that you have got to show people that they better be obedient or else. That's credibility.

MLF: I want to ask you to go back to the United Nations for a moment though, because--and if I may bring up the Canadian arguments again--because Canada has long been a supporter, in fact, of the UN, of international law, in every instance I can think of except this one. The argument our foreign minister and our Prime Minister give now, and in fact all of Parliament, is that, yes but, the UN is now a helpless organization, it could do nothing to prevent slaughters and massacres, therefore we had to do something, and, there is the UN Human Rights Declaration that gave them authorization.

NC: The UN Human Rights Declaration gives no authorization. It is perfectly true that there is a tension between the UN charter which bars the use of a threat or the use of force, and the Universal Declaration which guarantees, theoretically, the rights of people against oppressive states. But Canada doesn't care at all about ththe latter; Canada has a horrible record in that respect. For example, take Suharto's Indonesia, which is a brutal, murderous state. I think Canada was supporting it all the way through, because it was making money out of the situation. And we can go around the world, Canada strongly supported the US invasion of South Vietnam, of the whole of Indochina. In fact Canada became the per capita largest war exporter, trying to make as much money as it could from the murder of people in Indochina. In fact, I'd suggest that you look back at the comment by a well known and respected Canadian diplomat, I think his name was John Hughes, some years ago, who defined what he called the Canadian idea, namely "we uphold our principles but we find a way around them". Well that's pretty accurate, and Canada is not unique in this respect, maybe a little more hypocritical.

MLF: So, Professor Chomsky, has this action done any harm to the United Nations and the advancement of international law or was it already a moot thing?

NC: Of course it has. You could argue that since the United States, the leading power in the world, has brazen contempt for international law it doesn't mean much, but there is no doubt that this act is another blow against a rather fragile system of world order. But that's, in a way, you could argue, the least of it. I mean it has been of extreme harm to the people of Kosovo, that is obvious. It has undermined, and maybe permanently destroyed, a courageous and promising democratic movement in Belgrade, which was the best hope of getting rid of Milosevic. And it has caused considerable disruption and danger in surrounding areas, including the Yugoslavia republic of Montenegro and also Macedonia.

MLF: Let me ask you a question about our perceptions, rhetoric, and manipulation then, because our opinion polls right now tell us that the majority of Americans and Canadians support this action and as far as I can tell they are doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, that it was the humanitarian thing to do, that they are saving people.

NC: That's right, and the reason is clear enough. If you are told over and over again, morning to night, with close to 100% unanimity thundering at you that "we are doing this to save lives" you might tend to believe these absurd claims, although you could know with a moment's reflection their absurdity.

MLF: Do you think that people are also affected by the interviews with refugees, including the people who were supposedly bombed by NATO by mistake, who say, well it was a tragedy of course but we don't care, tell NATO to keep on, we are with NATO, NATO's doing the right thing.

NC: There are many people around the world who think you ought to bomb Washington, that doesn't make it a wise course of action.

MLF: But these are the victims who are saying carry on.

NC: Well of course they say it. Similarly the victims in Turkey would be delighted if the US would stop arming the Turkish government and would bomb Ankara...

MLF: But, they have lost, as you just said... they are all refugees now and they are still saying it is the right thing to do.

NC: When you are a refugee, what you hate is the person who most immediately drove you out with a gun, of course. If people sitting in Toronto can't think through the fact that the US, Canadian, and British actions escalated the atrocities, predictably, how do you expect a refugee on the ground to think about it.

MLF: There is near unanimity about this in the Canadian parliament. If what your are saying is correct, how is it that everyone is so misled, so wooly headed about this?

NC: I think the facts that I just described are quite plain. For one thing, we live in highly indoctrinated societies, with an intellectual class that is extremely subordinate to power, and since people are as a result totally bombarded with propaganda about how its not our fault if the consequence of our actions is an escalation of atrocities, they don't think about it.

MLF: Would you have done anything different?

NC: On March 23rd? Well, there were three choices. One was to act in such a way as to escalate the atrocities, that's what was chosen. A second choice was do nothing. A third choice is to act as to mitigate the atrocities. Now if you can't think of any way to mitigate atrocities the best choice was to do nothing. Okay, was there any way to mitigate the atrocities? Well, I suppose there were diplomatic options that were open; the Serbian parliament passed a resolution on March 23rd, the day before the bombing, in which it said that they would not accept a NATO force, (hardly surprising, Canada wouldn't accept a Warsaw pact force) but they proposed that there could be a move toward autonomy for Kosovo, and that after that, there should be an international force. Well, is that an acceptable offer? We don't know, because the US wouldn't even pay any attention to it. But pursuing that offer, through the mechanisms of world order such as the UN Security Council or neutral countries like India or others would certainly have been better than doing nothing and vastly better than acting to escalate the atrocities.

MLF: What do we do now?

NC: If a doctor is giving you medicine which is killing you, the first thing you would want if for him to stop giving you the medicine, not give more of it. So the first thing we ought to do is stop doing what is harming the situation. The second thing we should do is hand over diplomacy and negotiations to some credible source, so hand it over to the Security Council, to neutral countries, maybe India, South Africa, Scandinavian countries, any one who hasn't completely discredited themselves, to have them undertake diplomatic initiatives and see if there is a way to resolve the distinction between, for example, the Serbian parliament proposal and the NATO proposal.

MLF: Do you think we are likely to do any of that?

NC: The US and Canada? Very unlikely, because these are "jingoist" countries, which are highly subordinate to power and where people don't stop to think through the consequences of what they are doing,..unfortunately.

MLF: NATO, will be celebrating its 50th anniversary next week and they are all congratulating themselves on having found a new role.

NC: Yes, they have found a new role and a very ugly role, a role which has sharply escalated atrocities, exactly as they predicted, and that has caused extreme damage elsewhere, including the democratic movement in Belgrade, let alone world order. So if they want to celebrate that, fine. I'm not going to be celebrating.

MLF: Professor Chomsky, I thank you very much for talking to us today.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/chomintyug.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm

Byrnzie

sapperskunk wrote:

So what your telling me is we should NOT have gone to Somalia with the UNITED NATIONS to feed people that were starving to death because there were other interests at hand?

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199302--.htm

Aiding the Pentagon

In passing, we may note that the current PR campaign in Somalia has similar motives, a fact that is scarcely even disguised. The First Landing was carefully staged for TV. Pentagon briefings directed journalists to where they were wanted, even advising them when and where "to set up their cameras" (New York Times). Pentagon officials encouraged "extensive media coverage in a bid to cast the US mission in the most positive light," the Washington Post reported, noting "the invasion's made-for-Hollywood quality," which aroused considerable ridicule in Europe, and occasionally here. These officials were "eager to advertise both to Somalia and the rest of the world the precedent-setting humanitarian mission," the Post reported, omitting the quotes around the last two words that authentic journalism would require.

The operation will be "a good experience for other countries and for us to see what effect American generosity has on these types of disaster," the overseas relief chief of USAID Andrew Natsios, stated: "millions of lives will be saved Americans should feel very good about themselves" -- and about the Pentagon budget that allows such miracles of generosity. Officials "didn't hide the fact that they wanted to make it as easy as possible for the news media to cover an event that portrays them in a good light," Peter Grier reported in the Christian Science Monitor. "With the military budget crumbling, a little favorable publicity can only help." For the Marine Corps, the operation is a "showcase...at a time when Congress is under intense pressure to produce post-Cold War defense savings," the Post commented, and the whole affair is nothing less than "a public relations bonanza at just the right time." JCS chair Colin Powell added that the effort is a "paid political advertisement" on behalf of plans for an intervention force. The military "convoys were more a symbolic show for the world's television cameras than any serious effort to get a steady stream of food moving" New York Times correspondent Jane Perlez reported two weeks after the landing, under the heading "Somalia, We Are Here! (Now What Do We Do?)."


The intervention "seemed to be largely devoid of ulterior political motives," Perlez added, a phrase that is obligatory even in reports that bring out clearly the overriding "political motives" and the great efforts to achieve the desired effect. These efforts were so obvious that only the most disciplined were able to suppress entirely what they knew and to marvel that the intervention "was justified solely on moral grounds" and thus put "the question of idealism in foreign policy rather purely" (New Republic editors, their emphasis).

The pretensions could hardly be taken seriously. If Washington had any humanitarian concerns for the people of Somalia, it had ample opportunity to act upon them from 1978 through 1990, when it was the major supporter of Siad Barre, the Saddam Hussein clone who was then destroying Somali society, killing 50-60,000 according the African Watch and setting the stage for the horrors that followed-facts regularly finessed in current media coverage. There is no evidence of a sudden religious conversion since. Furthermore, there are numerous "humanitarian missions" that could readily be undertaken if generosity were even a marginal element in policy-making. To take a case close to home, it is agreed on all sides that a few phone calls to the ruling Generals -- not 30,000 troops -- would probably suffice to call off the savage terror in Haiti and allow the return of the democratically-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, highly popular in Haiti if not in Washington; this minimal intervention would also save any number of infants from starvation and disease. Examples abound. That aside, no one who even pretends to be serious will lend credence to a "humanitarian act" carefully staged for the world's TV cameras -- particularly, when it is undertaken by a great power with a horrifying record of abuse of human rights, and a particular penchant for imposing starvation and disease on civilian societies by economic warfare (Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, ...)

States are not moral agents. "Generosity" and "humanitarian missions" are tools of the trade of the commissar class in every society. Perhaps some historical examples can be found of "humanitarian intervention," but transparently, this is not one of them.

As is fully recognized, the troops were sent well after the civil society had begun to recover and the crisis was clearly receding. "One thing is certain," Jane Perlez emphasizes: "the worst of the Somali famine of 1992 is past." "The Worst Was Over" (a sub-heading reads) well before the U.S. forces arrived in December. By early November, aid agencies in the distribution center in Baidoa, where the crisis was unusually severe, reported that about 80 percent of aid was reaching the most needy, and by the end of the month, the ICRC and other experienced agencies were reporting still higher figures. Recovery from Siad Barre's atrocities in the North had been substantial well before, and even in the region of greatest suffering in the South there was visible progress, thanks in part to the efforts of the highly-regarded UN mediator Muhammad Sahnoun, who was removed after his public criticism of the incompetence of the UN operations. Serious reservations about the character of the U.S. intervention were expressed by development and relief agencies and the few people really knowledgeable about Somalia and the problems of famine, among them Rakiya Omaar, the Somali head of Africa Watch who was dismissed when she publicly opposed the intervention, and her co-worker Alex de Waal, one of the leading specialists on African famines and East Africa, who resigned in protest. The American Friends Service Committee, which has carried out development programs and relief work in Somalia for over ten years and is implementing emergency programs today, concluded "on the basis of this direct experience and our knowledge of the country and its people" that the massive military intervention is a "grave mistake" that "may be counterproductive in the long if not the short run," interrupting and disrupting the processes of reconstruction that "have been undertaken among traditional leaders facilitated by Ambassador Mohammed Sahnoun of the United Nations and others, to try to build peace from below." Apparently reflecting similar perceptions, the International Red Cross (ICRC), which played by far the greatest part in responding to the terrible famine that peaked in summer 1992, refused to accept U.S. military escorts for fear that this would disrupt arrangements that hail been developing within Somali civil society. The British government pressured Oxfam and Save the Children, both dependent on government support, to call off their criticisms of the intervention.

Many expressed particular concern over U.S. dealings with the leading "warlords," fearing that this may provide greater legitimacy and power to the most dangerous and destructive elements in the society. They seem to agree. Both General Mohammed Farrar Aideed the most powerful of these killers, and his ally Col. Omar Jess, who massacred over 100 civilian leaders in Kismayu in preparation for the arrival of the marines, "want to deal solely with the U.S.," Julian Onne comments in the Financial Times, reporting on a protest by 500 demonstrators loyal to Aideed that disrupted the visit of UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali to Mogadishu, which Aideed controls.

There is good reason to believe that a more modulated approach in cooperation with Somali civil society could have been effective in enhancing the recovery already underway, along lines that have been presented by Omaar de Waal, and other close observers. The military operation that was so "eagerly advertised" may prove beneficial or harmful to Somalis in the long run, but that is incidental; they are basically props for photo opportunities.

In the UK, as here, it is commonly felt necessary to include ritual phrases about the "humanitarian mission" in analyses of actual motives. Economic correspondent Michael Prowse of the Financial Times describes the Somali intervention in these terms: "in the absence of the communist threat, the most reliable way to sustain public support for large military expenditures may be to base foreign policy on values the public holds dear. In today's changed world [the Soviet threat having vanished], Mr. Clinton is thus being a realist, as much as an idealist, in pledging to make the promotion of democracy and human rights the guiding principles for overseas interventions" -- PR devices that he did not invent, of course. Having exposed the propaganda, Prowse goes on to laud "The heartwarming presence of U.S. troops in Somalia," where, "For the first time in recent U.S. history (perhaps ever), a sizable military intervention overseas was justified on purely moral grounds." A high tolerance for self-contradiction is a virtual necessity for intellectual respectability, given the need to invest the actual workings of power with suitable majesty.

The day after the intervention, in an article on the U.S. economy not mentioning Somalia, Prowse cited U.S. economists in corporate and financial institutions who attribute the sluggishness of recovery from the recession to the decline in military spending, which eliminates a traditional device for stimulating the economy. In brief, the stakes in "sustaining public support for large military expenditures" are high.

According to the official version of the timing presented most fully by Don Oberdorder of the Washington Post on the basis of official leaks, the decision to intervene was taken on November 21 on the grounds that "the need is crying" and "only the United States can do something." That story lacks any credibility; "the need was crying" months earlier, and was declining by late November thanks to the efforts of others.

It is possible that the intervention had been planned for the post-election period. In early November, a marine colonel in civilian clothes was seen by reporters in Baidoa, apparently scouting out the area where a major base would be established; at the time, U.S. military personnel were restricted to the cargo planes delivering supplies. A "humanitarian intervention" just before election day would have seemed too cynical a ploy, undermining the PR function. An earlier intervention would have faced two problems. The first is that the situation had not yet begun to settle. The operation would have been far more risky, and it was not so obvious then that the appearance of success could be quickly achieved; similar considerations rule out "humanitarian intervention" in Bosnia, even more strongly. Second, it is widely felt that things might go sour after the initial PR bonanza, and the Administration surely did not want to face such problems under the glare of election klieglights. The post-election timing is preferable. Order was being restored so the appearance of success is more likely. Bush's term can end in a blaze of glory. If the "purely idealistic" effort turns into the usual disaster, on the model of Grenada, Panama, and so on, attention will have waned or someone else will have to pick up the pieces and suffer the political consequences.

As in earlier efforts to sustain the Pentagon system, the Somali intervention may serve other purposes. The U.S. supported Siad Barre through his worst atrocities because of its interest in Somali bases for the intervention forces aimed at the Middle East and for possible operations in Africa; such considerations might remain of some importance (not much, I suspect, alternatives being readily available). Furthermore, in large parts of Africa and the Middle East the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (which may well be accelerated by the intervention) is a matter of growing concern, for traditional reasons: like secular nationalist tendencies, liberation theology, labor and peasant organizing, democratic socialist political initiatives, some military regimes, and other potentially independent forces, Islamic fundamentalism falls under the rubric of "ultranationalism," a term that covers any threat of deviation from the subordinate role assigned to the service areas, whatever its political coloration. Nevertheless, it seems likely that at the current moment, the prevailing factor is the domestic one, the crisis of state industrial policy, as the more serious commentary and reporting often indicates obliquely.

Byrnzie

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

You want to know what happend in Somalia? A couple soldiers died and Clinton ran away with his balls cut off. The Ethiopian army, using 4,000 soldiers, recently captured the entire nation. (And they're supressing the violence)

This is an example of what happens when a military is allowed to fight a war without liberal intervention. Refer to the "Feminization of America."

'liberal intervention'? You mean 'the will of the population', or 'democracy'?

Heineken Helen

dunkman1974 wrote:

but the thread title is "America supports you"

I wish the family and friends of soldiers had them back... whatever nation they are from.

Why do americans go on about "freedoms" all the time... we had a film about one of our greatest freedom fighters made that won many Oscars... in fact Braveheart even shouts it all the time "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEEEDOOOMMMM!!!!"

and yet i never hear any Scottish people ever mention their "freedoms"... but Americans... fucking hell... :rolleyes: probably one of the most intrusive, restrictive, admin-heavy administrations in the Western World but the patriots all think they have multiple Freedoms... :rolleyes:

i'm bemused in an arrogant way

*takes a seat beside dunk... equally bemused*

Byrnzie

Heineken Helen wrote:

*takes a seat beside dunk... equally bemused*

I think they go on about their 'freedom' so much for the same reason they love to fly flags all over the place - i.e, they have a need to constantly justify themselves to themselves. It's a kind of neuroses.

Edit: they're not unique in this respect of course. Just a little less subtle about it than most other countries.

sapperskunk

Byrnzie wrote:

I think they go on about their 'freedom' so much for the same reason they love to fly flags all over the place - i.e, they have a need to constantly justify themselves to themselves. It's a kind of neuroses.

Allright Byrnzie, lets do this. Bear with me though, I am sick as a dog.

Interesting article by Chomsky, he says that since the numbers are relatively low or comparable to other conflict zones like Colombia, there are other agendas at play. I totally understand, but how does that downplay the mission? I read a book by the most decorated soldier in British history, Andy Mcnabb who if I recall correctly did some Colombian drug task force stuff. Good read.

Anyway, I can't vouch for Somalia, but in Kosovo I delivered food, medical supplies, apprehended gun runners, violent criminals, dug irrigation ditches, relocated homeless families, helped build a school which I then filled with school supplies and then helped teach those kids about landmine awareness. These are just a few things I did out there, so how can you say it wasn't a humanitarian mission after hearing all that? Maybe the reasons for going are skewed, but that shouldn't take away from the good, right?

You still think we shouldn't have gone? I'm proud of the humanitarian missions I did in Kosovo, I really helped a significant amount of people in various ways and don't think I'll ever be sold on anything else.

And I don't go around waving flags in peoples faces. Mines on a T-Shirt and says "try burning this one".

Byrnzie

sapperskunk wrote:

Allright Byrnzie, lets do this. Bear with me though, I am sick as a dog.

Interesting article by Chomsky, he says that since the numbers are relatively low or comparable to other conflict zones like Colombia, there are other agendas at play. I totally understand, but how does that downplay the mission? I read a book by the most decorated soldier in British history, Andy Mcnabb who if I recall correctly did some Colombian drug task force stuff. Good read.

Anyway, I can't vouch for Somalia, but in Kosovo I delivered food, medical supplies, apprehended gun runners, violent criminals, dug irrigation ditches, relocated homeless families, helped build a school which I then filled with school supplies and then helped teach those kids about landmine awareness. These are just a few things I did out there, so how can you say it wasn't a humanitarian mission after hearing all that? Maybe the reasons for going are skewed, but that shouldn't take away from the good, right?

You still think we shouldn't have gone? I'm proud of the humanitarian missions I did in Kosovo, I really helped a significant amount of people in various ways and don't think I'll ever be sold on anything else.

And I don't go around waving flags in peoples faces. Mines on a T-Shirt and says "try burning this one".

What regiment were you in? Doesn't sound like your job was to shoot anyone. Were you in the actual army, or working for reconstruction projects or something?