From: Tara
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 04:39 PM
On 3/25/99 12:04:58 PM, Carol Anne wrote:
>Personally, I can't ignore the
>human side of it. Watching my
>students suffer because they
>can't get in touch with their
>families in Yugoslavia just
>breaks my heart.
>
>
>Dr. Costabile-Heming
>Assistant Professor of German
>SMSU
By the "human side of it," what exactly do you mean?
From: M2
Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 10:52 PM
The idea of protecting our economy is really a joke, the only economic
troubles that will come from this is if you own a Yugo and need some new
parts. This is a very complex problem that we are dealing with and going in
with guns blazing is definitely the wrong move! First off these long-range air
attacks are really inconsequential and will have little affect on an already
deployed war machine. To do real damage you have to get a little dirty with
an air/ground war. This will not be like the party we had in the desert, these
are well-trained soldiers with some of the top of the line weapons from
Russia (see article about F-117 being downed). Secondly, we don't have
unilateral support on this mission which isn't unusual but the violent
opposition that we are currently seeing is! Things will not improve if we
remain on this course of action and everyone should be frightened of this
situation.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 12:52 AM
okay, i wanna start off by saying that my ril231 teacher made a very good
point this morning. he thinks we shouldn't be over there, we're wasting money
that could be used for scholarships and whatnot....
but the biggest point was that up until now, no other nation has had the stealth
technology that our fighter jets have had. now it's on the open market thanks
to us putting our planes in a situation to be shot down. ten years from now,
it's just as likely that Russia could send in planes that can evade our radar and
bomb the fuck out of us just like we do to Iraq and whatnot. we know the
planes avoid our radar. That's why the work.
From: sarah
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 06:26 AM
Are we handling it the wrong way? Sure we are. Are we going to screw
ourselves over? Yep. But still, something needs to be done about this. These
aren't soldiers fighting against each other, and this isn't a showcase of
technology anymore. They are going out of their way to kill women and
children, they are going out of their way to torture women and children, and
they are being cowardly about it. Placing bombs near schools and markets is
not war. It is just plain vileness.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 01:33 PM
well, we already have screwed ourselves possibly in the long term. so we might
as well just go in there and get it over with instead of all this prolonging crap.
if we're gonna do something, do something for pete's sake.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 04:40 PM
BTW, unless NATO agrees to Yugoslavia's terms (or Yugoslavia to
Russia's, which would make the NATO bleed from its rectum quite heavily),
the mission does not have a chance of success without ground troops.
From: sarah
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 05:18 PM
Let me say something here that I said in class. My grandparents own a small
trucking co-op, and they contract out to move military loads, including
provisions and weapons. I talked to my grandfather yesterday, and he said
that they were moving a shipload of ground troop provisions, including guns,
and he stressed that if they were moving it, being completely unclassified
civilians, the chance is great we will be moving troops into Kosovo. within a
month.
It's as if the gov't doesn't care if the public finds out; like they're going to
announce it soon anyway.
From: Normski
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 02:19 PM
On 3/30/99 12:52:49 AM, Baf wrote:
>
Sorry Joe,
But I'm going to have to start butting in here:
>okay, i wanna start off by
>saying that my ril231 teacher
>made a very good point this
>morning. he thinks we
>shouldn't be over there, we're
>wasting money that could be
>used for scholarships and
>whatnot....
>
So you don't care about the thousands of people in Kosova - men, women
and children - *already* exterminated by the Milosevic regime?
You are quite happy to see your country exploit the economic resources of
foreign countries - and you don't feel obliged to give something back when
people cry for help?
>but the biggest point was that
>up until now, no other nation
>has had the stealth technology
>that our fighter jets have
>had. now it's on the open
>market thanks to us putting
>our planes in a situation to
>be shot down.
>
That's what warplanes are for.
>ten years from now, it's just
>as likely that
>Russia could send in planes
>that can evade our radar and
>bomb the hell out of us just
>like we do to Iraq and
>whatnot. we know the planes
>avoid our radar. that's why
>the work.
>
FYI - stealth technology doesn't make the aircraft invisible, it simply delays
the first time at which they become detectable on radar - when coming head
on. From directly below they are just about as visible as any other modern
fighter.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 04:38 PM
I don't think we'll get screwed over. The United States is by far the most
aggressive and militant industrialized country. The equipment is excellent,
definitely the best, but there is little chance that Russia, for instance, would
attempt to duplicate that technology. Firstly, they still own very good
warplanes, and secondly, they don't even have the money to keep those in
working condition, so they will hardly have the dough to manufacture new
planes. Russia is further a fairly passive country, and they would most likely
not try to attack anyone. This will stay the same, even when (which they will
after Yeltsin dies, unless the economy improves) the communists regain
control. That is, if we don't start freaking out again.
I still have not changed my opinion about the whole mission. The UN should
have handled it before NATO got involved.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 06:25 PM
maybe Russia was a bad example then biest. but china maybe. it doesn't
matter who, the point is that now it's available.
From: Tara
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 01:35 PM
On 3/30/99 4:38:27 PM, Das_Biest wrote:
>I still have not changed my
>opinion about the whole
>mission. The UN should have
>handled it before NATO got
>involved.
What do you believe the UN could have accomplished in place of NATO?
Do you think that Milosevich might have agreed to stop diving out Albanians;
agree to a peaceful solution that would jeopardize his power because UN
diplomats were used rather than NATO's?
From: Normski
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 03:17 PM
On 4/1/99 1:35:43 PM, Tara wrote:
>On 3/30/99 4:38:27 PM, Das_Biest wrote:
>>I still have not changed my
>>opinion about the whole
>>mission. The UN should have
>>handled it before NATO got
>>involved.
>What do you believe the UN could have
>accomplished in place of NATO? Do you
>think that Milosevich might have agreed
>to stop diving out Albanians; agree to a
>peaceful solution that would jeopardize
>his power because UN diplomats were used
>rather than NATO's?
>
1) From day one the Serbs would have been isolated and questioning why
the World was, at least nominally, against them. There would have been no
one country that they could try to portray as being "imperialist" and an
aggressor attacking poor little Serbia.
2) The Russian problem: it's made them look very foolish - both domestically
and internationally. There are hardliners in Moscow demanding support for
the Serbs. Yeltsin is not popular in Russia. It is quite possible that Yeltsin's
administration could collapse - and be replaced by the hardliners. They will
be belligerent.
3) If it all went pear shaped (which is exactly what is happening) we could
have withdrawn gracefully - "didn't have a UN mandate to go
further...yada...yada..yada...".
NATO is looking very foolish. It's looking impotent. It has completely failed
in its aim to stop the "ethnic cleansing". And it was obvious to anybody who
had the slightest knowledge of the region - contemporary and historic - that
an Iraqi style campaign was simply inappropriate. The only way to solve
things is to get troops in on the ground - risky or not.
There will be no "Smart Weapons Greatest Hits" video on sale after the
event. This is a proper war - not a joy ride around some desert.
From: Tara
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 03:33 PM
On 4/1/99 3:17:05 PM, Normski wrote:
The only way
>to solve things is to get troops in on
>the ground - risky or not.
>
>There will be no "Smart Weapons Greatest
>Hits" video on sale after the event.
>This is a proper war - not a joy ride
>around some desert.
There is a decent debate about ground
troops at abc news, thought you might want to
check it out.
From: Normski
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 07:11 PM
On 4/1/99 3:33:05 PM, Tara wrote:
>
[...]
>
>There is a decent debate about ground
>troops at , thought you might want to
>check it out.
Yeah. A lot of what is there is perfectly correct. But the whole thing is just
starting to look silly - an army that the US can't send into battle in case some
of its soldiers get killed. What happens when the bad guys call your bluff?
I also noticed the opinion poll on the front page - with the least likely option
(9%) being "peace with Milosevic still in power".
Ten bucks says he empties Kosova and then sues for peace.
From: M2
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 11:53 PM
Interesting views did you do any time in Iraq or other theaters?
From: Normski
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 07:26 AM
On 4/1/99 11:53:35 PM, M2 wrote:
>Interesting views did you do
>any time in Iraq or other
>theaters?
>
What is your point?
From: M2
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 02:36 PM
Simply that I find your views intriguing and was wondering if they were
formulated around first hand military experiences, individual research on the
topic or other means? Also your statements on the Russian industrial
capabilities may need some revision.
>…they wouldn't be able to duplicate it; their manufacturing technology
simply isn't up to it.
Though they are have economic troubles at the moment, Russia makes
weapons that are on par as good as and in some cases better than their
western counterparts. They have made achievements in technologies that we
were unable to (i.e. new Mig Look Down - Shoot Down Radar, chemical
weapon systems, decontamination systems, etc.). The main limiting factor for
the development of stealth planes (besides capital) was the need for bigger
and faster computers, which are now common place around the world.
From: Normski
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 05:57 PM
On 4/2/99 2:36:25 PM, M2 wrote:
>Simply that I find your views
>intriguing and was wondering
>if they were formulated around
>first hand military
>experiences, individual
>research on the topic or other
>means?
>
No, I've not served in the military, but I've certainly got friends and
acquaintances who have - Northern Ireland to Angola and a few places in
between. First hand accounts are always interesting. Mostly though, my
notions of what's what come from a healthy interest in history and current
affairs.
>Also your statements on the Russian
>industrial capabilities may need some
>revision.
>
>>…they wouldn't be able to duplicate it;
>>their manufacturing technology simply isn't
>>up to it.
>Though they are have economic
>troubles at the moment, Russia
>makes weapons that are on par
>as good as and in some cases
>better than their western
>counterparts....
>
I hear what you're saying. The one thing that they probably lack is a suitable
propulsion/maneuvering system for their own version of a stealth aircraft.
Who knows what the components of such a system are made from - special
alloys, ceramics, [shrug]. It's those bits I doubt they could duplicate.
Still, they will be definitely be beside themselves at getting their hands on one
- broken or not.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 06:20 PM
>So you don't care about the thousands of
>people in Kosova - men, women and
>children - *already* exterminated by the
>Milosevic regime?
*already* exactly. we shouldn't act out of revenge, but defense of further
ones. i don't care about dead people. that's correct. i feel bad for what
happened, but that's not what you stated.
>You are quite happy to see your country
>exploit the economic resources of
>foreign countries - and you don't feel
>obliged to give something back when
>people cry for help?
>
i was restating what my teacher said. we did the same thing in Vietnam pretty
much. only then we did it because we claimed to be protecting our own
interests. all i'm saying is that if people (our people) are going to be dying for
something, then we need to get our act together. yes i think the u.s. should
help. but i think this should be more of a NATO action. and of course we milk
other nations, any that have the opportunity to do (in some aspect). it's been
that way throughout history.
>That's what warplanes are for.
then we need to be fighting a war and not just tinkering around..
>FYI - stealth technology doesn't make
>the aircraft invisible, it simply delays
>the first time at which they become
>detectable on radar - when coming head
>on. From directly below they are just
>about as visible as any other modern
>fighter.
and you must think i'm an idiot if i actually didn't know that....
but they'll be just as effective on us as they are on them.
From: Wolfgang
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 07:16 PM
The more I read about this, the more I'm forced to agree w/ Biestie.
Yugoslavia isn't a member of NATO, and therefore NATO really has no
right to be there. However the UN should be there, peacekeeping and what
not.
But I still must think that this situation reminds me of the movie Before the
Rain, the same sort of stuff was talked about there. If you've got a couple of
hours it might be worth your while.
From: M2
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 02:38 PM
Some very good points; however, let me make a few technical ones. Stealth
technology is not the miracle weapon that most people make it out to be. The
Russians have had a radar system since the late 80's that is capable of
detecting these planes! Plus if you think that no other country has this
"stealth" technology you're crazy. It just isn't feasible to invest in them, @
$2
billion per B-2 (not including R&D) a government could invest in many other
more worth while weapon systems, this includes our own government.
>FYI - stealth technology doesn't make
>the aircraft invisible, it simply delays
>the first time at which they become
>detectable on radar - when coming head
>on. From directly below they are just
>about as visible as any other modern
>fighter.
Partially true, they all still have a signature even with conventional radar but it
is greatly reduced (about the size of a goose). This is accomplished by
constructing them from radar absorbent materials and eliminating all right
angles so no signal is transmitted straight back.
>These aren't soldiers fighting against each other…
Not saying that no one else is being killed but the KLA is a military unit.
>They are going out of their way to kill women and children…
This is a civil war and they are always gruesome even compared to war in
general. It's not about conquering territory but the eradication of the other
group and the Serbs are not alone in this goal.
As for the moving of equipment, I'm mot saying that they are not going to
send troops but this is the standard operating procedure any time we get
involved in one of these things.
Here is a question for all of you. What are we to think of a President who
sends troops into an environment, which he avoided himself (that is if we
decide to send ground troops)?
From: Wolfgang
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 03:40 PM
I do say, what a pertinent question to be asking ourselves. Good job.
Personally, I think it shows a disrespect for the office, but oh well, he got
away with everything else, he'll get away w/ that too.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 05:07 PM
>Personally, I think it shows a
>disrespect for the office, but
>oh well, he got away with
>everything else, he'll get
>away w/ that too.
By now he would get away with anything, I think.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 05:05 PM
>This is a civil war and they
>are always gruesome even
>compared to war in general.
>It's not about conquering
>territory but the eradication
>of the other group and the
>Serbs are not alone in this
>goal.
It is not just a civil war anymore, it's become sort of a threesome... It seems
like Yugoslavia couldn't care less for what NATO is doing, since they still
continue to drive all the Kosovans out of their country.
>
>As for the moving of
>equipment, I'm mot saying that
>they are not going to send
>troops but this is the
>standard operating procedure
>any time we get involved in
>one of these things.
>
Don't say we. If I don't have a say in something, I am not involved. And since
they unfortunately did not listen to me when they planned this pointless
mission, I feel insulted to be associated with it.
>Here is a question for all of
>you. What are we to think of
>a President who sends troops
>into an environment, which he
>avoided himself (that is if we
>decide to send ground troops)?
Weak as he has been throughout his second term.
From: Cicero
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 07:28 PM
On 3/31/99 2:38:01 PM, M2 wrote:
>>These aren't soldiers fighting against each
>>other…
>
>Not saying that no one else is
>being killed but the KLA is a
>military unit.
Compared to the "Yugoslav National Army," the KLA is a rabble with
popguns. Put otherwise, the KLA is a military unit like the Los Angeles
Clippers are an NBA basketball team.
>Here is a question for all of
>you. What are we to think of
>a President who sends troops
>into an environment, which he
>avoided himself (that is if we
>decide to send ground troops)?
[...]
It's not exactly that simple. Clinton was not an American soldier who refused
to serve in Vietnam. He dodged the draft in order to avoid the prospect of
serving there.
If Clinton orders ground troops to Kosovo, he will be sending men and
women who enlisted in the military of their own free will. No coercion
involved: he is sending them to do their job.
Now, if the Kosovo conflict were to boil over into a protracted affair, and
Clinton decided to reinstitute the draft, then I would call him a bleeping
hypocrite.
From: Normski
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 12:20 PM
On 3/31/99 7:28:08 PM, Marcvs wrote:
>On 3/31/99 2:38:01 PM, M2 wrote:
>
>>>These aren't soldiers fighting against each >>other…
>>
>>Not saying that no one else is
>>being killed but the KLA is a
>>military unit.
>
>Compared to the "Yugoslav National
>Army," the KLA is a rabble with popguns.
>Put otherwise, the KLA is a military
>unit like the Los Angeles Clippers are
>an NBA basketball team.
>
If they were just about anywhere else in the World they would also merit the
title of terrorists. They're pretty far from glorious freedom fighters. Giving
them guns and bombs (and I'm not pointing fingers here) gave the extremist
Serb nationalists exactly the sort of excuse they had been waiting for.
From: M2
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 11:46 PM
>Compared to the "Yugoslav National Army," the KLA is a rabble
>with popguns. Put otherwise, the KLA is a
>military unit like the Los Angeles Clippers
>are an NBA basketball team.
Rabble or not they started the movement for an independent republic. Put
otherwise, as long as the Clippers keep playing they will keep getting their butts romped
on!
>It's not exactly that simple.
It never is!
>Clinton was not an American soldier who refused
>to serve in Vietnam. He dodged the draft in order
>to avoid the prospect of serving there.
Semantics, though not illegal he refused to serve by avoiding the draft. I think
he is a coward of the worst type setting there on TV waiving his finger as he
lectures us in quivered voice about why we must sacrifice. Whenever he did
not sacrifice for his country, whether he agreed with it or not is irrelevant
many others didn't but still supported the country. Both wars are based on
ideals not nation defense and both wars were/are ran by people who don't
know what they are doing. US Soldiers pledge to "…support and defend the
constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…"
not play policemen (a skill they are not trained for) to the world. I'm starting
to ramble so I'll close, this thing just has too many facets.
From: sarah
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 09:12 AM
Don't give me any more of that 'He was a coward' crap. He went into the air
force training program so he wouldn't get his butt blown away like the front
line 'I volunteered because I'm ignorant' guys. I hate to tell you, but most of
our relatives did the same, whether it be the navy, or the air force, people
wanted to live. That is not cowardice. It's being smart. Survival of the fittest.
From: M2
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 11:45 AM
What a thing to say about the people who have made the ultimate sacrifice
for this country so that you may enjoy the freedom you do today! I'm not
going to even pretend that you know the meaning of words like "duty" or
"honor" but at least read more about the statistics you attempt to quote.
Most frontline troops were not volunteers but draftees (or knew they were
going to be drafted so volunteered). Most of the people who got the chance
to get into these programs to avoid the draft were from wealthy or politically
influential families and the positions were very limited.
>…most of our relatives did the same…
Not mine. My father was already in before the 'police action' and served 3
separate tours. I was already in before Desert Shield/Storm and would not
have had troubles going if there was a draft even though I thought we were
there under dubious pretences. You do under stand we all have the 'duty' as
Americans to serve when called upon?
>That is not cowardice. It's being smart. Survival of the fittest.
This statement is so wrong on so many different levels. If we based our
national defense on this logic we would not have a national defense! So
should our soldiers just pack-up and quit if they don't agree with our
government's policies? Nobody wants to die but the true heroes of the world
were able to see that there is more to the world than their own self-interest.
Everyone wants to enjoy the fruits of liberty but when it comes time to do the
work everyone seems to disappear.
From: sarah
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 05:10 PM
Oh get off it.
Vietnam WAS NOT about our national security. It was about Rockefeller
making 4 billion off of our boys dying. So yes, if your family was stupid
enough to get themselves drafted for such a disgusting conflict, then they are
ignorant. And the Persian Gulf was the same thing. We did it for our
monetary interests. Just the same reason we are doing it here. It has nothing
to do with duty, if it did, then this wouldn't be going on because the nation's
public would feel a sense of duty to even know what's going on. These
people have fought since the beginning of time. So has the Middle East, and
Vietnam. Maybe it would be nice if we did it out of some since of duty, but
we do it for our personal gain. Don't be so naive.
From: M2
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 08:13 PM
>We did it for our monetary interests. Just the same reason we are doing it
here.
What is the economic gain that we have coming from this mainly agrarian
culture? What ever it is it had better be very lucrative to compensate for the
cost of one F-117 and hundreds of cruise missiles and bombs!
From: sarah
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 09:31 PM
Maybe it would be to protect the interests of the 18.1 billion a year that we
have been pouring into that region. HMMMMMMM......
From: M2
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 09:52 PM
Afraid I don't buy that.
From: Sarah
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 09:09 AM
Then that's your problem.
From: M2
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 10:59 AM
Let me get this straight for the record, you say we are in this conflict because
we have supplied monetary aid to this region?
From: Sarah
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 11:28 AM
No, I was just arguing that point. I like to argue each side a couple days at a
time. That is the wonder that is me. I like to get people riled up. But, yes, we
have sent big bucks to that area, and it would be awful for us to have it fall
into the wrong hands.
From: Cicero
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 10:20 AM
On 4/1/99 11:46:13 PM, M2 wrote:
>>Compared to the "Yugoslav National Army," >>the KLA is a rabble
>>with popguns. Put otherwise, the KLA is a
>>military unit like the Los Angeles Clippers
>>are an NBA basketball team.
>
>
>Rabble or not they started the
>movement for an independent
>republic.
Not exactly. The Albanians of Kosovo have always wanted some kind of
autonomy, free of both Serbia and Albania.
>Put otherwise,
>as long as the Clippers keep
>playing they will keep getting
>their butts romped on!
>
>>It's not exactly that simple.
>
>It never is!
>
>>Clinton was not an American soldier who refused
>>to serve in Vietnam. He dodged the draft in >>order to avoid the
prospect of serving there.
>
>Semantics,
The truth.
>though not illegal
>he refused to serve by
>avoiding the draft. I think
>he is a coward of the worst
>type setting there on TV
>waiving his finger as he
>lectures us in quivered voice
>about why we must sacrifice.
You are entitled to that opinion. You don't have to believe him. But like it or
not he is President of the United States. When Desert Storm took place I
supported President Bush's actions not because he was a WWII veteran, or
because I had voted for him (I didn't). I supported his actions because he
was the President and he was doing the right thing. To be fair, I should point
out that President Clinton is getting far more support from the Republican
Congress than President Bush ever got from the Democratic Congress he
had.
>Whenever he did not sacrifice
>for his country, whether he
>agreed with it or not is
>irrelevant many others didn't
>but still supported the
>country. Both wars are based
>on ideals not nation defense
The Republic of South Vietnam, as then constituted, did not deserve US
support. They were willing only to soak up US aid and defend their country
to the last American. Nor was it a war of ideals. It was a matter of staving off
the "domino phenomenon" and finally, of saving face.
>and both wars were/are ran by
>people who don't know what
>they are doing.
Granted. But who the hell does know what they are doing? It's easy for us to
look back in the clear light of hindsight and decide what governments and
presidents and generals should have done. But doing the right thing at the
right time is fraught with difficulty, even if it is clearly the right thing. Again,
look at the rough time the Senate in particular gave Bush with Operation
Desert Storm.
>US Soldiers
>pledge to "…support and defend
>the constitution of the United
>States against all enemies,
>foreign and domestic…" not
>play policemen (a skill they
>are not trained for) to the
>world.
How are US military not trained to serve as police? Not having served in the
military, I'd be interested in hearing someone who has explain the differences.
I'm guessing that having the military serve as a peacekeeping force is
ultimately preferable to having it fight in full blown wars, but this is a civilian
talking.
>I'm starting to ramble
>so I'll close, this thing just
>has too many facets.
It does, doesn't it?
From: M2
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 10:00 PM
>…entitled to that opinion. You don't have to believe him. But like it or not
he is President…
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he should not be able to command
the military. It's just a strange bit of irony. It's like when you wear an itchy
wool sweater out to a movie. It's uncomfortable and you don't like it but
you're stuck with it until you can get home and get out of it.
From: Cicero
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 11:51 PM
On 4/2/99 10:00:34 PM, M2 wrote:
>and you don't like it but
>you're stuck with it until you
>can get home and get out of
>it.
Heh. That's actually how I feel about Clinton myself... and as you know, I
voted for him twice.
From: M2
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 10:22 PM
>How are US military not trained to serve as police?
It's hard to explain! Imagine the difference between the police breaking up the
crowds after the Stanley Cup and the charge of the US troops into
Iraq/Kuwait. Of course this is somewhat absurd but it illustrates how one
case requires a lot of finesse and restraint (lots of gray). While the other is
very straightforward if they don't surrender you kill them and you keep doing
this till told to stop or you reach your objective (no gray areas). US Soldiers
are not trained to deal with very much gray and in most cases individual
thought is not encouraged.
From: Cicero
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 11:56 PM
On 4/2/99 10:22:43 PM, M2 wrote:
>>How are US military not trained to serve as police?
[...]
>While the other is very
>straightforward if they don't
>surrender you kill them and
>you keep doing this till told
>to stop or you reach your
>objective (no gray areas). US
>Soldiers are not trained to
>deal with very much gray and
>in most cases individual
>thought is not encouraged.
Thanks for the answer. Do you see it as possible for select soldiers to be
retrained for this sort of police role, much as there are branches such as
airborne troops and Marines?
From: M2
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 11:42 AM
>Do you see it as possible for select soldiers
>to be retrained for this sort of police role, much
>as there are branches such as airborne troops and
>Marines?
I don't think that is very practical because we just draw troops from the
nearest location for these things. Plus this seems to be our main purpose for
the military now maybe it should just be a part of basic training in general.
The problem I see is that it takes a fairly intelligent individual to handle these
delicate situations and the type of people you get to enlist has a direct
relationship to the economy. When I joined during the recession of the late
80's and early 90's there were lots of sharp people going in for various
reason (getting money for school, payoff college debt, etc.) Now with the
economy as good as it is you are hard pressed to get people that can do
more than take the hill. There is also another little problem called 'The Chain
of Command'! It is very effective in combat but in these peacekeeping
missions where conditions calm then rapidly changing (in minutes sometimes
seconds) it becomes a bit awkward.
From: Normski
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 05:41 PM
On 4/3/99 11:42:04 AM, M2 wrote:
>>Do you see it as possible for select soldiers
>>to be retrained for this sort of police role, much
>>as there are branches such as airborne troops and
>>Marines?
>
>I don't think that is very
>practical because we just draw
>troops from the nearest
>location for these things.
>
[...]
I disagree. It can be done. Any UK soldier knows that he will have to do at
least two tours of duty on peace keeping roles - one in Northern Ireland and
one elsewhere. When there's a will...
From: M2
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 06:33 PM
>>I don't think that is very
>>practical because we just draw
>>troops from the nearest
>>location for these things.
I was referring to only having a special group trained to deal with these
events. I think they should all be trained to handle this type of environment if
we plan on maintain this type of foreign policy. We could learn a lot from the
UK soldiers and their experiences in Ireland, possible cross training with
them would be a definite plus! Is military service obligatory in the UK like in
the rest of Europe?
From: Normski
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 07:00 PM
On 4/1/99 11:46:13 PM, M2 wrote:
[...]
>Both wars are based on ideals not nation
>defense and both wars were/are ran by
>people who don't know what they are doing.
>
Speaking only of the current situation: I think things go a little deeper than
that.
I work in the UK, but for an American company. I have to *cope* with
American management. Concepts such as 'reasoned, rational debate' and
'agreement through consensus' are entirely alien to them. The person who
carries the day is the one who thumps the table and shouts the loudest for
longest. And they do get their way; people have better things to do with their
time than spend the day being bored to tears and getting deafened.
But what happens when your playing away from home? What happens when
you're not able to make the rules? And when the stakes are higher?
To me, it seems endemic to the America psyche, an assumption that
American solutions to problems, approaches to situations, will automatically
work elsewhere.
There are many in the World, only too delighted to see Uncle Sam looking
befuddled.
America is a big part of the World economy, but it is only a small part of the
World population. It needs to educate itself more about the behaviour and
motives of those elsewhere - otherwise it is going to get caught out badly,
sooner or later. It'll probably get away with this one though; NATO has to
win to salvage its credibility. It's just that it's going about it in an incredibly
clumsy way. [Having said that, many of the European members of NATO
are displaying a remarkable degree of ambivalence to the whole modus
operandi of the conflict].
>US Soldiers pledge to "…support and
>defend the constitution of the United
>States against all enemies, foreign and
>domestic…" not play policemen (a skill
>they are not trained for) to the world.
>
It's been on the cards - I dunno - for ten years - that NATO's role was likely
to change - that it might well, overtly or not, take up a policing role. Don't
forget, many other NATO countries' troops have been serving as UN peace
keepers (in Bosnia) for quite some time now.
Next time, do try to enter the party a little more gracefully.
From: M2
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 08:41 PM
>Don't forget, many other NATO countries' troops have been serving as UN
peace keepers…
There have been discussions and court cases involving this very subject.
During the Bosnia operation some of the US troops were refusing to wear
the blue UN helmets/berets or serve in these units because they did not join a
UN Police force but the US military. I don't know if it is still being litigated or
if they have passed judgement yet.
>I have to *cope* with American management…
In the words of our president "I feel your pain," Americans can be very
ethnocentric.
>Next time, do try to enter the party a little more gracefully.
Point taken. Sorry if I was a bit too sharp and poignant.
From: Normski
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 07:47 AM
On 4/2/99 8:41:51 PM, M2 wrote:
[...]
>
>>Next time, do try to enter the party a little more gracefully.
>
>Point taken. Sorry if I was a
>bit too sharp and poignant.
>
No, No, No! Not you dude! I was referring to the way the US entered this
conflict!
The sharper and more poignant your points are, the better. (IMHO).
From: M2
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 11:14 AM
Oh! That's good.
>Next time, do try to enter the party a little more gracefully.
As my wife says (she is a German national) "Americans have no grace,
everything here has to be big and flashy." Though a bit too generalized I have
to agree with the premise it's just too bad that it runs over into our foreign
policy.
From: Normski
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 05:27 PM
On 4/2/99 8:41:51 PM, M2 wrote:
>>Don't forget, many other NATO countries' troops have been serving as
UN peace keepers…
>
>There have been discussions
>and court cases involving this
>very subject. During the
>Bosnia operation some of the
>US troops were refusing to
>wear the blue UN
>helmets/berets or serve in
>these units because they did
>not join a UN Police force but
>the US military.
>
I believe you. Last time I saw an advert on t.v. for the US military, it showed
them doing joy, joy things and having nice peachy days.
I know there will be people who join up to do genuine soldiering, but with
adverts like that, you're going to get a lot of people who aren't up to it when
the fighting starts.
From: M2
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 06:42 PM
>…you're going to get a lot of people who
>aren't up to it when the fighting starts.
From my own experience this is very true. When Desert Shield/Storm started
they called for some troops from my unit in Germany and a fellow in the S-1
shop thought he was going to have to go so he came pleading for me to take
his place. It's a very sorry sight to see indeed, especially for such a wimpy
war like the gulf war.
From: Normski
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 03:52 PM
On 3/30/99 6:20:49 PM, Baf wrote:
>>So you don't care about the thousands of
>>people in Kosova - men, women and
>>children - *already* exterminated by the
>>Milosevic regime?
>
>
>*already* exactly. we
>shouldn't act out of revenge,
>but defense of further ones.
>i don't care about dead
>people. that's correct. i
>feel bad for what happened,
>but that's not what you
>stated.
>
Eh?
[...]
>i was restating what my teacher said.
>
Fair enough, but his/her attitude suggests an infeasibly high level of stupidity
and parochialism.
>we did the same thing in Vietnam pretty
>much. only then we did it because we
>claimed to be protecting our
>own interests.
>
The good news: Vietnam was a different situation, with a different cause, in a
different era. Comparisons are pointless.
The bad news: in terms of international politics, Vietnam was straightforward,
this is much more complicated.
>all i'm saying is that if people (our
>people) are going to be dying for
>something, then we need to get
>our act together.
>
It's being reported in the press in Europe, that many American generals are
furious with Clinton for launching this action too early - that he had been
advised to wait until troops had been dispatched to Europe in case the air
campaign proved ineffective. And it is indeed becoming apparent that it hasn't
had the desired effect - "minimal damage on Serb Air defences". What is the
American media reporting? (BTW, you're running out of cruise missiles).
The Serbs aren't the Iraqis; they're not tactically naive; they're not about to
line their forces up in neat little rows so that we can knock them over.
>yes i think the u.s. should help. but i
>think this should be more of a NATO action.
>
This is the sort of statement that both worries and annoys. This *is* a NATO
action - most NATO countries *are* involved. America is contributing just
over half the forces in total. Given the relative size of the populations and
economies of the member countries, this is pretty much in proportion.
The only ground troops currently in the area - in any sort of number - are
British, French and Germans. They're dug in along the border of Macedonia
and in Bosnia (as they have been for several years) to defend against any
Serb attacks. Where's the back up guys!? Lobbing bombs from afar at
people who simply duck and then shout "Neener! Neener!" isn't really that
useful.
>and of course we milk other nations, any
>that have the opportunity to do (in
>some aspect). it's been that way
>throughout history.
>
I said what I said because that is how America is perceived in much of the
World. Free trade - yeah! But only if it's on America's terms!? This is
probably the first time since WWII that she's made a significant military
commitment to an overseas operation for primarily moral reasons rather than
economic ones.
>>That's what warplanes are for.
>
>then we need to be fighting a
>war and not just tinkering
>around..
>
We are agreed then.
>>FYI - stealth technology doesn't make
>>the aircraft invisible, it simply delays
>>the first time at which they become
>>detectable on radar - when coming head
>>on. From directly below they are just
>>about as visible as any other modern
>>fighter.
>
>and you must think i'm an
>idiot if i actually didn't
>know that....
>but they'll be just as
>effective on us as they are on
>them.
>
I wouldn't worry about them getting their hands on Western hardware - for
the reasons you think. Even if somebody delivered an intact stealth fighter to
Red Square, they wouldn't be able to duplicate it; their manufacturing
technology simply isn't up to it.
What it does do, however, is give them a chance to develop better defences
against them.
I do hope the American media are reporting things accurately - including the
history of the situation. From what I see when I holiday in the US: I'm a little
concerned. I'm curious - has this little conflict taken you a bit by surprise?
From: sarah
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 03:57 PM
Tara, you missed a good conversation about this in Roman Civ today.
Personally, I think we are getting into something we will regret later, but who
can just sit by and let them act this way? At least we have other countries
support. Better than when we just went into Iraq again with no backing...
From: job
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 04:34 PM
Who says that we (America)should be the parent of every country that can't
seem to get it together. Do we have to war with everyone we don't agree
with? Instead of fighting maybe our involvement should consist of peace
talks. We may be able to be a neutral party and help in that way but picking
a side and fighting in a war will just put the fighting on a bigger scale. Are air
strikes, and war for that matter, going to stop the long term hatred these folks
feel towards each other? Is sending our troops over to fight and die worth it?
Is there someone you know in the service who's death would be honorary if
they died for this cause? Would you want to die for this cause if you were
drafted? Job
From: Tara
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 04:58 PM
On 3/25/99 4:34:55 PM, Jennifer wrote:
[…]
>cause? Would you want to die
>for this cause if you were
>drafted? Job
A couple of thing here I want to respond to; one, NATO has attempted to
gain a peace accord between Milosevich and the and the Albanians. The
Albanians were very cooperative in settling peacefully and trying to reach
accord with the Serbs, Milosevich refused to attempts at diplomacy and has
continued to slaughter and drive the Albanians from their homes, simply
because of their minority beliefs. NATO (not only the U.S.) and all involved
countries (except Russia) agreed that since Milosevich refused to bend that
something must be done to prevent the killing and displacement of thousands
of innocent people. So yes, I would gladly give my life to save thousands,
hence my agreement of America's involvement on the basis of utilitarian
ideology.
(so I guess "one" pretty much covered it)
From: Das_Biest
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 10:05 PM
What is going on over there is horrible. This war is about as far away from
my home as (I estimate) Florida is from here. Germany, for the first time
since World War II, is fighting a war (ironically an aggressive one). At least
three of the nuclear powers (Russia, China, India) are completely against
these strikes. This is a real bad nightmare scenario.
While I despise the Yugoslavian government for all they have done since the
break-up of their country, there is no doubt that NATO has caused this war.
NATO has absolutely no business fighting outside their boundaries without
UN permission. In fact, the UN is deteriorating because the US and NATO
are acting with wars more and more frequently, simply ignoring the UN
charter.
I have already e-mailed the German chancellor, the German secretary of
Defence and some other high horses over there to ask them to reconsider
their strategy and let the UN try first. I URGE all of you to do the same with
the American officials (president@whitehouse.gov). Let's not let this become
another Vietnam-type crisis!
The ONLY reason why the peace agreement failed is NOT because the
Serbs did simply not want peace, they did not want NATO troops in their
country. Of course they didn't, nobody would. UN peacekeeping troops are
a different story. In my opinion, only IF the UN had failed and given NATO,
or any other military organization the authorization to strike, would this war
have been necessary.
I do not want my daughter to grow up in such a world of anarchy.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 08:36 PM
Without wanting to offend you (Tara), but what you wrote could not be more
wrong.
>NATO has attempted to gain a
>peace accord between Milosevich and the
>and the Albanians.
True, but I was not NATO's job. Yugoslavia is not part of NATO, so they
are not responsible for that area unless asked by the United Nations.
>The Albanians were
>very cooperative in settling peacefully
>and trying to reach accord with the
>Serbs, Milosevich refused to attempts at
>diplomacy and has continued to slaughter
>and drive the Albanians from their
>homes, simply because of their minority
>beliefs.
The peace agreement failed solely because Milosevic did not agree to
NATO soldiers stationed in his country. Neither would the US have agreed
to have foreign soldiers stationed here when they put thousands of Japanese
Americans in concentration camps in the 1940s.
>NATO (not only the U.S.) and
>all involved countries (except Russia)
>agreed that since Milosevich refused to
>bend that something must be done to
>prevent the killing and displacement of
>thousands of innocent people.
Russia did agree and came to an agreement with Milosevic about conditions
for a re-opening of the peace talks, that Clinton blatantly denied.
>So yes, I would gladly give my life to save
>thousands, hence my agreement of
>America's involvement on the basis of
>utilitarian ideology.
BS. You would gladly give your life for an American president who
continuously shows the rest of the planet that he has an army with which he
can command 90% of all countries and the United Nations like a classic
dictator. Either he kills for personal and political gain (Iraq, Afghanistan), or
for international image reasons (Yugoslavia). I ask, where is NATO and the
US in the 40+ similar conflicts that are going on around the world right now,
if they are so big on humanitarian aid??? Nowhere to be found, luckily,
because the United Nations have done a tremendous job in the past to bring
warring countries to peace, and if they still had the support they had before
the 1990s began, it would still be this way.