Problem with the US military?

Just to reiterate, I didn't mean to 'dis' Carib or the more pro-US military - folks on this board. If the OP has a link that's not all about singing the praise of Unca Sam then I think some criticism is presumably allowed. My country Finland has been a part of the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan for a long while. I actually know a guy who was an officer there and he personally knew the first Finnish KIA of that conflict, Finland has so far lost two guys dead in that war.

Sometimes Americans get very upset when I criticise their military or the wars they wage, be it the Afghanistan war, Iraq war, GWOT, the Dirty wars, etc.

As for the way US military spends money, I supposed that's up to the Americans to decide. Strange in a way how USA and conservatives there are all about small government but then are happy to throw billions down to the tube when it comes to the military. Yep, the military-industrial-complex is a reality and might be the thing that's sort of making the long term decisions in USA at the moment instead of the prez, the congress, the senate or the people.
 
I have to admit I'm apprehensive, but hopeful about the future with regards to the state of the world (as far as I know) in relation to American involvement over the past 10 years.

ISIS appeared and in the country we helped liberated and tried to build for a decade, but they've taken only a small portion of the emptiest part of the country and in multiple months made no progress. I look forward to the moderate Muslims defeating them I want to say so there doesn't have to be another operation to remove them courtesy of the USA, but that being stopped by their own "people" would do much to discredit them.

I'm glad Afghanistan is finally being left although I hear about areas of it still not loyal to the new government and possibly being Taliban. I can't believe after all this time they haven't realized how much better off they are or how much American help has caused it to be that way. If for any reason there has to be American intervention again I hope we just bomb them. Also yes that sounds terrible, but under the circumstances I really don't think they'll possibly change if this much time and effort won't make them withdraw support for the extremists.

I'm REALLY happy Europe didn't collapse into a huge war over Russia antagonizing Ukraine. I'd like to think that Putin was hoping the people (both Russian and Ukrainian) would rally to him and found out he was wrong, but it's probably more that powerful people that influence him (more so economic leaders than Russians themselves) were angry at their economy being wrecked by sanctions now that they are heavily influenced by foreign trade.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I can't believe after all this time they haven't realized how much better off they are or how much American help has caused it to be that way. If for any reason there has to be American intervention again I hope we just bomb them.
Click to expand...
I really don't want to attack you, nor do I want to start some anti-american rant, I know you are a resonable character after all. And I like americans.

But I feel this is one of the many reasons why people find the Americans and their politics so obnoxious. There are many shitholes on this planet, many places where injustice and violance happens. No arguing about that.

But how many times have bombs or interventions/wars actually lead to improvements? I would say, not very often. Particularly since most of the time those happen not because of altruistic or even humanistic intentions. I think that should be rather clear for most people after the operations in Iraq and the search for weapons of mass destruction. But we are NOT improving their situtations really.

Too often the situations where we as the western world decide to act are cherry picked. Why are some cases so important which require always our attention, often enough in the middle east, while many African states don't bother anyone, like Somalia or the Rwandan Genocide. Africa is full of bigger or smaller dicatorships, and yet that is never really much of a problem. The Chinese are opresing the Uyghur people for decades, declaring many of them as terrorits for no reason. Yet we look away because China is a great business partner.

I believe that you simply cannot force people into democracy. You cannot force people into freedom. Particularly not the way how we do it as it has not much to do with freedom or liberation but rather more with occupation and opression. And as strange as it might be for us with our western education. Some nations simply feel comfortable with their culture and system. And many people would rather keep their apparently bad system instead of adopting our one, becuse we are foreigners, because we are forcing them. I would never trade the Iran or Syria with Europe. And I do believe that our political system is better, but that doesn't mean that our culture and our way of thinking is inherently superior, if alone for the fact that many of the issues today have their roots because of our actions in the past, just take situations like the Iran contra affair as example.

In most cases we do a very bad job with other nations, which is one of the many reasons why there are so many shittholes around the earth. We preach on one side about liberty and freedom about democracy, but our actions speak a different language. It is hard to believe in such concepts if you see things like those happen all the time:


The sad truth is, that the US will remove their forces from Afghanistan, from Iraq and it will not take very long and those places will be the same shit holes like they have been before all those bombings and military operations. With the effect that many people have been killed there and that many US soldiers lost their lives for the wrong reasons, not for the freedom of someone or to protect the US but to secure pipelines and politics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that much of American Interventionism has turned out bad for those affected including Americans, but most of those were in the past when people didn't know much better.

I mean after 9/11 there had to be some action taken. Afghanistan was almost entirely ruled by extremists and although the country could barely support itself it did what it could to aid their cause. It was the best target for decreasing the threat of terrorism towards the USA.

I've often considered what other countries would have done had something like 9/11 happened to them. They'd certainly increase internal security and make immigration/travel much stricter, but not go to war. That would only leave the problem for someone else who gets attacked next.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
support the troops?

yup.

you think it was up to the troops to go into afghanistan or iraq?

you think it was up to the troops to stay there?

you think its up to the troops that they are still there?

you think the troops wanted to get rid of the a-10 and get the f-35?

the problem is a systemic issue of corruption and collaboration with the higher management of the military, the members of congress, and the military industrial complex.
 
@The Vault Dweller attacking Afghanistan hasn't made the situation more save for the US though. Let us be honest, Afghanistan was about revenge, not justice or safety. Better security measures in general, more efficient institutions and more efficient background checks for imigrants. Yeah, those have improved the situation in the US. But the bombing of foreign nations? Has that ever increased the security for the US really?
 
TheWesDude said:
support the troops?

yup.

you think it was up to the troops to go into afghanistan or iraq?

you think it was up to the troops to stay there?

you think its up to the troops that they are still there?

you think the troops wanted to get rid of the a-10 and get the f-35?

the problem is a systemic issue of corruption and collaboration with the higher management of the military, the members of congress, and the military industrial complex.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the majority of american soldiers enlisted after the military operations had begun, no? I think the problem is the phrase "Support the troops." Support all troops? How about understanding their plight but criticising their goals, means and fuckups?
 
Last edited:
@The Vault Dweller: You seem to be approaching in kind of a simplistic way. Life is not as simple as removing an oppressive regime and thereby making people's lives better, nor is it so simple that removing a regime will remove or even reduce the threat of terrorism. Invading a foreign country, removing a regime that enjoys at least partial support among the populace and then seeing tens of thousands of people killed, infrastructure destroyed and livelihoods ruined has a way of making people's lives worse and increasing radicalism among at least a portion of the local population.

We don't have great civilian deaths estimates for Afghanistan -- most estimates are in the tens of thousands, but every estimate admits there's no good data out there. We have better data for Iraq -- and it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Estimates for civilan deaths caused by the war in Iraq range from ~120,000 over the course of the war (based solely on media reports -- almost certainly a massive underestimate), to between 500,000 and 1,000,000 just between 2003 and 2007 (based on surveys), and that in a country with a population of ~33 million. The war destroyed infrastructure, public services, people's livelihood, tore apart families and displaced millions. Meanwhile, Iraq is now also the subject of constant sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia factions, is dealing with ISIS in parts of the country, and has the Kurds wanting to establish a separate state. And then there's the fact that the new democracy may be more accountable, but it is still not exactly a beacon of religious tolerance and still is a somewhat oppressive regime.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. But for many, many Iraqis, the American invasion made life worse in every measurable way. Similarly, while the Taliban represents an oppressive religious regime, nearly 15 years of constant violence have a way of making life worse for the people actually living there. Especially so when the result isn't even stable government.

The reality of the situation is that military intervention by the US has often made matters worse, and externally-induced regime change tends to not be the most stable form of government. There are no easy answers here, but the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan really should not be surprising to anyone.
 
Yep. Whether or not military occupation, or invasion, or international policing could ever be a good thing, America is terrible at it. They even have the term "blowback" for when extremists retaliate and incite hatred of america and it's troops when they perform another operation, without realizing that hey! this is a huge problem.
 
Ceratisa said:
Crni Vuk said:
But the bombing of foreign nations? Has that ever increased the security for the US really?
Click to expand...
We bombed Germany and Japan and they never attacked us again >>
Click to expand...

Oh well. Yeah. Than maybe we should start a third world war, this time against muslisms maybe. Let us throw a nuke on Mekka and Medina, demanding unconditional surrender from their leaders and see what happens!

Sorry but that is a bit ridiculous, neither WW2 or WW1 can be compared with all the wars we saw with the last no clue 60 years or so. The world was actually never as peacefull and quiet like today. Even politically. Imagine this, Vietnam was the last big war of the western world, the Soviets had Afghanistan. And that's it! And even Vietnam has not seen millions of dead americans/europeans. When was the last time France lost 100 000 men on the field? Or the US? Or even Russia? China? Our world today was never as stable like now. Things could of course change. But yeah, I believe things will improve hopefully from here.

This war of terror though was such a failure and groups like ISIS are totally inflated in their danger to the western world. Just like Sadam in the past.

Lets face it. This is about economics. Making sure that we keep our power. Not about saving human lives. Or improving the situation of some poor children and farmers down there. I am not saying people don't suffer from all of those wars and political systems, they do a lot and I would love to see the inocent people prosper and enjoying a live in savety just like I do. But the last 20 years have shown that our military actions did pretty much NOTHING to improve their situation, so we could as well leave our pilots and soldiers at home.

Infact ISIS actually even came to power BECAUSE we started to mess around with Syra, Iraq and shattering the big military powers of the middle east. People hated Sadam (rightfully so) but they forget that with the destruction of his political party and power we simply left a big huge vacuum down there. And someone has to fill it. I hate al-Assad for example. But believe it or not, there are worse mofos down there than him. That is simply the reality. And we have to deal with that. Bombinb those shitholes so that one group that gets opressed by the dictator can overtake the nation will help nothing, the freedom fighters of today can be the opressors of tomorrow, and it is not rare that their terror regime is even WORSE.

With WW2 You had equal powers here in a struggle between world domination (more or less). And even here it is questionable how much humanism played a role, even for the US, because the US had no issue to support Germany AND Japan for quite some time with resources. And their political leaders definitely knew about the Nazi party or the military powers behind Tojo. Particularly with Germany, it is not like they made a real secret out of their politics. Just look at Ford some time, and what the Nazi leaders said about him.

WW2 was a totally different situation compared to the threat of terrorism and the political situation of the last 50-60 years, particularly when you throw the Soviets into the picture and their political influence over the world in the past. If you had totday a clear enemy like in WW2 with the Japs and the Germans or even just the Soviets, like some united Muslim empire or something like that things would be totally different. - I can't help it but think about the crussades here. But the Muslim nations hate each other pretty much as much, if not even more than the US.

The best we could do is to leave them alone. And trying to support those that suffer with first aid, food and free education.
 
Last edited:
Sander said:
@The Vault Dweller: You seem to be approaching in kind of a simplistic way. Life is not as simple as removing an oppressive regime and thereby making people's lives better, nor is it so simple that removing a regime will remove or even reduce the threat of terrorism. Invading a foreign country, removing a regime that enjoys at least partial support among the populace and then seeing tens of thousands of people killed, infrastructure destroyed and livelihoods ruined has a way of making people's lives worse and increasing radicalism among at least a portion of the local population.

We don't have great civilian deaths estimates for Afghanistan -- most estimates are in the tens of thousands, but every estimate admits there's no good data out there. We have better data for Iraq -- and it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Estimates for civilan deaths caused by the war in Iraq range from ~120,000 over the course of the war (based solely on media reports -- almost certainly a massive underestimate), to between 500,000 and 1,000,000 just between 2003 and 2007 (based on surveys), and that in a country with a population of ~33 million. The war destroyed infrastructure, public services, people's livelihood, tore apart families and displaced millions. Meanwhile, Iraq is now also the subject of constant sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia factions, is dealing with ISIS in parts of the country, and has the Kurds wanting to establish a separate state. And then there's the fact that the new democracy may be more accountable, but it is still not exactly a beacon of religious tolerance and still is a somewhat oppressive regime.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. But for many, many Iraqis, the American invasion made life worse in every measurable way. Similarly, while the Taliban represents an oppressive religious regime, nearly 15 years of constant violence have a way of making life worse for the people actually living there. Especially so when the result isn't even stable government.

The reality of the situation is that military intervention by the US has often made matters worse, and externally-induced regime change tends to not be the most stable form of government. There are no easy answers here, but the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan really should not be surprising to anyone.
Click to expand...

I agree...thing is there's no real alternative. You can't leave the extremists alone as it will just encourage them. I suppose you could try to have small operations to just remove small groups of them, but you can't gain access to whole countries when they're entirely disposed to not trusting you.

I'm not naive about this I just think there's no better alternative.

I will admit that the fear of terrorism could be over-exaggerated to justify the war for the sake of military spending, but only the highest levels of government know for sure how much of a threat it is and true or not they'd have to keep it secret for security reasons.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Man, it's impossible to tell beforehand whether any operation against ISIS for example, will do more good than harm. But does aiding and arming surrounding countries allied to the US count as leaving them alone, or not? Man I'm just one bunch of atoms on a big atomball. Absolute moral judgement on military policy is waaaay beyond my grasp.
 
Ceratisa said:
Crni Vuk said:
But the bombing of foreign nations? Has that ever increased the security for the US really?
Click to expand...
We bombed Germany and Japan and they never attacked us again >>
Click to expand...
Can't tell if you're joking or serious. If you're joking, okay then, nevermind.

But if you're serious...

U.S forces bombed the shit out of German civilians... deliberately. They WANTED to instill terror in the Germans to make them surrender, so it's tragically ironic nowadays that "terrorism" is being demonized like something the U.S. would neeeeever eeeeever do. Really sad. But most importantly, Germany was on the brink of surrender because of THE SOVIETS, not the Normandy invasion, or any of the other allies. Shit, American involvement did little other than help out France, and German surrender would have liberated it anyway. So, Germany probably doesn't have the same cultural reservations against the U.S. as they would towards Russia. Actually, let me rephrase that. Germany DOES NOT have the same cultural reservations against the U.S. like they DO towards Russia. In case you haven't noticed, they're the U.S. of Europe; powerful douchebags running the collective governing bodies, and they've got a hard-on for fucking over Russia if ever given the chance. If you took out the name of the nation, you'd be forgiven for thinking that was describing the U.S. right now.

U.S. forces bombed the shit out of Japan AND followed that up with the atomic bombs. But was Japanese surrender the result of these heavy bombings? Nope. Once again, it was THE SOVIETS who were winning that war. Japan was already at the negotiating table with the Soviet Union, terrified of what their ground forces would do to the island nation, after they systematically and unrelentingly crushed Japan's occupation in Asia. The Soviets were marching towards unstoppable victory with unmatched numbers and military forces in BOTH directions, and each side quaked with their oncoming arrival. It was this dominance that made American politicians cook up the idea of using atomic weapons against an already-surrendering Japan as a global display and show of force so that it would not lose face against the Soviets. And it backfired gloriously. The Soviets weren't intimidated, they just started making their own. But we're all quite familiar with that story.

So, bombing the shit out of two major powers in a war resulting in no blowback? Only if they were already surrendering because of someone else who was crushing them and who WOULD suffer blowback as a result. At least from Germany. Japan has been quite an anomaly in its adoption of global aid rather than militarism and imperialism. Very, very anomalous, considering its warring and imperialistic history.

Also, let's not forget that "bombing Germany" can be split into 2 different instances, not one. CLEARLY there were significant repercussions for the first, namely, the rise of the Nazi party. That was kinda sorta absolutely a direct result of the actions against Germany following The Great War. Not necessarily "bombing" so much as shelling, granted, and it was more to do with the political actions taken after surrender. But still, a very important distinction.

So, at best, 33/67 right.
 
Crni Vuk said:
You can't leave the extremists alone
Click to expand...
Why not?
Click to expand...
Because then things like 9/11 happen once they have grown powerful enough to strike at things outside of what was originally fairly small sphere of influence.
@SnapSlav I was joking by stating a fact that while it is true, it isn't relevant.

But your commentary is still a bit off, everyone engaged in TOTAL war during WWII and please don't undermine American involvement in WWII, if the Nazi's had finally successfully isolated European resistance outside of Britian they would have been free to throw almost everything they had at the Soviets.

If you look at the actual commentary of the Emperor's cabinet you'd know just days before they absolutely opposed surrender by the way. They wanted an agreement that would allow them to retain their claims on China.
Japan had already proven itself better in terms of Naval capacities in a previous war. Russia's deep water capacities during WWII were fairly limited in fact, the most Russia did was make Japan lose their claim on China. By the way, Japan wasn't at the table with Russia, they were at a more sensory stage to diplomatic options with Russia. And regardless of all of this, If Japan had refused to dismantle their Empire, Russia wouldn't have stopped either, because the United States were pushing for the total destruction of Japan's political system.

By the way part of the reason for Germany having better relations with the U.S. is quite simple to understand, Berlin's division gave people a very clear view of what Germany was like when controlled by each side. West Germany had I believe billions? poured into it to put it back on its feet.
 
Last edited:
I think this had more to do with bad security rather than not bombing/liberating/conquering other nations though. There have been many needed changes inside the US because of 9/11, I mean the next time something like Hurricane Katrina is moving over the US coast lines killing thousands of people we could as well simply shake our fists to the sky and just curse the wind for it or we could think about why the emergency services eventually havn't been more efficient.

But again. Why should we feel the need to bomb the shit out extremists on the other side of the planet that have no chance of realisticaly beating us? Like as we have seen in the past 60 years it often enough just bites us in the ass at some point - like 9/11. Again, those people have a reason to hate us.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top