SOMALIA REVISITED

[kellychaos]

I'm not getting the feeling that it's anything those people, as individuals did, so much as who they represent. Perhaps part of it was the fact that local guerillas knew what qualifications these guys had, what they were there for and decided to squash the threat of what they may do before it happened. Honestly speaking, I don't see the city being made into a parking lot. That would create more uproar than any benefit or feeling of vindication on our part. What I do see in the city's future is a close scrutiny of the area to find the main insurgents, surgically take them out and send a message to those who may even think about doing something so medieval and inhumane again ... and I don't think you are likely to hear or read about any of the specifics over the AP.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

So did it happen because they were Americans, or because they were perceived as thugs guarding stolen oil wells?

AbcdXXXX would have us believe it's the former, but I've heard so little about the story that I'm unsure.

I'm not sure the "Arab street" covets oil nearly as much as we covet oil. They're used to thugs gaurding stolen oil wells, they're just not used to it being American thugs.


That's interesting about the Chileans, but the victims were American, right?

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by mburbank

A agree with Kevin. I think these are two unrelated issues. It doesn't matter what the hell these guys were. They could have been soldiers or cake decorators, I don't think it changes what happened.

Certainly not, I'm just upset that I had to learn about it like this.

According to an article I read, a Fallujah car salesman who watched heard the men were CIA. That's probably what most of the mob thought.

Originally Posted by ranxer

how much taxes are we giving to private corporations to protect US interests? we're giving over 50% of our tax dollar to the war machine but that doesnt include these private security deals right?

I read in the Wall Street Journal that the corporations are required to provide their own security, but the US government pays for it. It seems to me this whole ordeal might have occured differently if the US government just recruited more soldiers and paid them to protect the Americans doing the rebuilding. I am VERY against the use of ununiformed, unregulated private forces who are STILL perceived as part of the American government.

And of course, we can keep our mercs over there long after we pull out our soldiers, and the American public doesn't have to worry that we're still at war during election season.

[kellychaos]

Doesn't it kind of irritate anyone that the military leaders in charge over there have been begging for increased military support for months and were refused, but then, in place of more troops, get privatized security forces? It's almost like the government is trying to hide just how large are presense is by excluding support from conventional troops ... or am I overstating this?

[ziggytrix]

That's half of what's got me so pissed off.

[ranxer]

What I do see in the city's future is a close scrutiny of the area to find the main insurgents, surgically take them out and send a message to those who may even think about doing something so medieval and inhumane again

i don't think we've done anything surgically over there.. i'm reading reports of our soldiers breaking down doors and shooting everything that moves from front and back then checking later if they got anyone worth killing.. after they found out they had the wrong address in one incident the soldier said to the press 'oh man, these backward iraqis don't know how to put the right address on thier houses.'

there's a difference between what is happening on the ground in Iraq and what is being reported in the US news and it's a huge difference.

Robert Fisk has a lot of interesting things to say every day that doesnt make it into the U.S. mainstream.. ever.

[Abcdxxxx]

When we hire outside assistance to our military is it still included in our military spending budget? Or could that be another benefit of doing it this way?

[El Blanco]

One benefit might be that they don't have to play by the same rules US troops do. Of course, they don't get the same back up our troops do, either.

[kellychaos]

You fellas noticed that we went from a reporter with every brigade during the ground invasion but have seen little in the way they've dealt with insurgency after the "war" over the mainstream media?

[davinxtk]

Yeah, they kindof stopped that when they realized that reporting daily riots in the streets and American soldiers having to defend themselves with bayonetts on their M-16s wasn't exactly the kind of war that the American people wanted to be fighting.

[The One and Only...]

The real benefit to the dominant political machinization is that we can make do with fewer military troops. This not only makes it appear as though less manpower is needed than is really required, but also keeps public outcry down because fewer young soldiers are being killed.

Expect to see more private enterprises cropping up in the war against terror. I'm certain that we'll see plenty of specialized forces created to root out members of such organizations.

[Supafly345]

They do genuinely hate us. But it is not for political reasons, or just bitter vengeance; it is religious. They are led to hate those who practice a religion other than their own - this along with the fact that they believe that most all Americans are Christian, leads them to unprejudiced hate that cannot be avoided.
In their religion, they believe a man can die even after he has been already killed in the common understanding of the word. So when they beat and mutilated the corpses of these dead people, they were essentially, in their minds, killing them over and over. Hatred enough to want to kill a person they don't even know, again and again.

We aren't going to get them to love us, because they are compelled to only hate. Sure, we need to fix what we broke there, but I say that the best thing to do is cut our losses and split.

[ranxer]

defense budget and mercs:
my understanding is that corporate interests get taxpayer dollars to help defend those interests via mercs.
we have over 140,000 troops over there and no-one can say reliably how many thousands more in mercs guarding everything from oil wells to our soldiers bases.

supafly:

They do genuinely hate us. But it is not for political reasons, or just bitter vengeance; it is religious.

comeon bud.. that's only a fraction of the fighting.. religious fundamentalism is present and used as a TOOL by those wielding that flute.. the other folks fighting have a problem with an OCCUPATION and corporate THEFT of oil contracts(foriegn companies being brought in for reconstruction etc. Many others will join in (the enemy of my enemy is my friend sometimes yaknow) because as in palestine they have seen thier towns and loved ones shot up and bombed to hell. We have fueled the fire with gasoline.. i think religion is a solid 30% of the reason people are fighting but not much more.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

You fellas noticed that we went from a reporter with every brigade during the ground invasion but have seen little in the way they've dealt with insurgency after the "war" over the mainstream media?

Well, think about the imbedded reporters during the invasion. They had something to follow. They were given a goal, follow the tanks (or what have you). You knew where the action was, you just had to make sure the camera was rolling.

Now, we are occupying and sending out patrols and such. It would be a pain in the ass to send out an entire crew with each and every squad. And its not like they know when or where the fighting will be.

[Supafly345]

Originally Posted by ranxer

i think religion is a solid 30% of the reason people are fighting but not much more.

You are overcomplicating it, as I would expect from an aspiring political buff. That is a thrown number there, and it is impossible to accept how their religion effects their decisions when all we focus on are the domestic benefits and shortcomings; so I can see why you feel the need to think that.

But what you may not have realized, is that no religious leaders or government mind-wipers decided on these beliefs, they were established centuries ago. Again, they were raised this way, there is no puppet master pulling the strings.
To think this is about resources again is a generic and, pardon me, narrow vantage on what we are looking at. This was an attack on normal workers, and a desecration of their beings along with it.
The automatic mechanical response to this is "This goes back to when we attacked just for Oil and ruined all of their lives." and that is simply not true. They have never wanted anything to do with us. It has always been this way, and will always be this way.
And you have to get real for a second here. You think that the slumrats and field workers are stewing day and night over a resource they never really had power over in the first place? (Not that I am saying that stripping them of it is fine and dandy) You would actually think that they would murder, burn, abuse, and hang unarmed people who are working to help reconstruct the very city they live in over something they know nothing about? It is just simple common sense mixed in with a little knowledge of their land's background.

But again, I suspect most ignore that and will continue to make recurring arguments to turn everything that happens in that region as another leg to support their original opposition to all activity there. Even though I also oppose most foreign involvement where it does not belong, I realize that the only involvement that lead to this disaster was those people's mere presence.

[ranxer]

i don't think mercs were rebuilding anything, they may have been securing areas that were scheduled for reconstruction but i havnt' heard what their mission was in falluja.
either way mercs 'securing' a 'safe zone' for whatever purpose are armed and enforce 'peace' through the threat of violence..
I've heard iraqis saying 'we fought saddam now we are fighting the western occupier', i almost never read or hear of average iraqis talking about religious war, its war against occupation, theft and armed 'pacification' that creates a vicious cycle of violence much of it revenge for collateral damage.
I just don't see much evidence of this religious war you are talking about, and yes 30% is my own estimation from the various news sources i frequent.

[Ant10708]

I thought a majority of the violence that occurs in Iraq was by people who just crossed the border into Iraq. Is this incorrect?

[Brandon]

You'd have to be either naive or politically correct to the point of absurdity to suggest that religion hasn't played a role in this war or the greater "War on Terror."

[Ant10708]

But it only played a 30% role.

[ranxer]

way too often its been used a tool, both in the US and Iraq.

[Bobo Adobo]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

You'd have to be either naive or politically correct to the point of absurdity to suggest that religion hasn't played a role in this war or the greater "War on Terror."

Its not really the religion itself that plays a role in the war. Its the distorted interpertations of religous morals that do. The American Government thinks that we are the supreme superpower that knows all good. They think that if we just poke our head into every shady situation in world, all will be good. It's just stupid and arrogant, how can a country who has more crime than any other civilised country go around making things right?

I wouldn't totally put religion to blame though. You don't see catholic monks launching cruise missles anywhere, do you?

[kellychaos]

Yes, the misinterpretation by fundamentalist religious leaders has something to do with it. Yes, our occupation of their country has something to do with it. And yes, there are some other factors that go into them wanting to kill our soldiers. Somehow, I'm not so much bothered by the fact of the killing so much as the way they those people were killed and desecrated afterward. It was medieval and fills me with an anger that starts as my f'n toes and shoves bile right up my throat. With this, logic and political discussion go out the window. Those particular people need to be rounded up and dealt with with extreme prejudice. Rant over.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

Its not really the religion itself that plays a role in the war. Its the distorted interpertations of religous morals that do.

Yeah, but it's still religion.

I wouldn't totally put religion to blame though. You don't see catholic monks launching cruise missles anywhere, do you?

Nah, the Catholics have retired from the killing business.

And no, the religion itself is not to blame, but it's undeniable that the actions of the terrorists have religious motivations behind them.

[Supafly345]

To die a martyr for their religion (such as suicide bombings and death penalties) is the only guaranteed way to gain access to an afterlife for them- if that puts things into perspective.

[davinxtk]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

... Somehow, I'm not so much bothered by the fact of the killing so much as the way they those people were killed and desecrated afterward. It was medieval and fills me with an anger that starts as my f'n toes and shoves bile right up my throat. With this, logic and political discussion go out the window. Those particular people need to be rounded up and dealt with with extreme prejudice...

An American woman who had recently married a man from Saudi Arabia spoke to one of my history classes during my senior year of highschool. She passed around pictures of everyone posing around "the family gun." She talked about it like it was their watchdog.
This part of the world is of a medieval mindset with modern weapons and capabilities. There's no way to erase millenia of religious, financial, racial, and political turmoil and convince these people to live and let live.

At least no way that doesn't make us easily as medieval and barbaric as the destructive minds we're trying to quell.