General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf armed mercenaries invaded your country, that you have never attacked, would you fight back too?
i thought so....
:large
polly7
(20,582 posts)I remember the first time I heard Iraqi civilians described as insurgents and terrorists ..... it made me sick.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also, the fact the US has invaded doesn't mean that the people shooting at them (eg the Taliban) aren't extremists.
polly7
(20,582 posts)And would you automatically be an extremist/insurgent/terrorist for doing so?
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The fact that soldiers are paid does not make them mercenaries. Mercenaries are soldiers who fight for pay on behalf of foreign governments.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Nonetheless, part of the very definition of a mercenary is that they operate outside of the law and outside the command of their own country's armed forces.
So referring to US troops as mercenaries is egregiously incorrect, and defamatory to boot.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)And he probably wasn't paid on a regular basis. He was motivated by something else. Which is a good indication of why he eventually won and after several decades, 50,000 or so American dead, and billions of dollars of waste, we packed up and took off in the direction of the South China Sea.
I'm afraid we may be facing an enemy kind of like that again. Some of them, anyway. But, 80 percent or more of the foreign militias operating under the Black Flag in Syria are little more than mercenaries, who I suspect would pack it in and head home within a couple months if the money were cut off from the gleaming towers of Jeddah and Doha. That much we can do, but it's the very thing we refuse to do to break up ISIS.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That money flows outside of the banking system and isn't tracked by computers so NSA can't see it.
Charlie won, in part, because the US didn't ever have a meaningful path to victory. South Vietnamese were never going to get the job done, so we were treading water there (while blowing the entire place up), until we started sinking.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Those who could do something about it just don't have the authorization to interdict them, yet.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Did you forget all the contractors like Blackwater that were heavily involved in the various wars over there?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)tblue37
(65,408 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Maybe the MIC forgot to budget for flowers! yeah, that's the ticket!
madokie
(51,076 posts)and most people here in America would also
Why do we expect the people of other countries to not is the 64 dollar question
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But they sure can nitpick on the semantics...
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)when the discussionists ( ) do not use a common vocabulary and definitions.
randys1
(16,286 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Certainly if my area were run by ISIS or the Taliban, and the US invaded and occupied, I'd view that as an upgrade.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They weren't there before the US invaded Iraq.
Funny how that works, innit?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)in other countries should do, how they should live, and above all, be accepting of everything and anything we tell them to do.
Your response actually is the definition of why so much of the planet fears or hates or both, USA...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Will people who think like you ever change?
You are not John Wayne...none of our solders are Rambo.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with trite "woe the worlds hates us" stuff found on the anti-American left.
I didn't say anything remotely approaching John Wayne/Rambo.
There is zero prospect of anyone invading the United States. Only psychotically paranoid militia types believe there is.
randys1
(16,286 posts)right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I was saying, from my perspective, I would rather live with US troops calling the shots as opposed to the Taliban or ISIL.
You're free to disagree. But mine is not an indefensible position (unless you think the case for being ruled by the Taliban or ISIL is obviously superior).
randys1
(16,286 posts)language, it is that language and belief that has us in this mess.
I am not trying to be obnoxious or pick a fight, I am hoping at some point you might say
"you know, you are right, let me think about this some more"
i dont want to argue with someone who has healthcare.gov on their sig, cuz I assume it means we have much in common
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are fundamentalist Muslims (as most people in rural Afghanistan are) would agree, or that we should invade to improve their lives, etc.
I am just saying, as someone who abhors theocracy, I would prefer the US military over religious fanatics.
randys1
(16,286 posts)doing that because of your reason, their reasons are sick and twisted and it is our job as liberals to see the gray...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)see them.
The Iraq war was the worst US policy action since Vietnam.
onecaliberal
(32,864 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)You say only "psychotically paranoid militia types" believe there is a chance of anyone invading the US. How is that not a personal attack against people who are not so sure America will never be invaded? You are wrong, by the way. America could be invaded.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There are two countries that can invade the United States:
1) Canada.
2) Mexico.
The "Mexican invasion" crowd reside on the extremes of the rightwing movement. The Pat Buchanan, militia types.
Those who think Canada could invade the United States are crazy.
Maybe in 2000 years things will be different. But not in our lifetimes.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)America could very well be invaded. You should never think that cannot ever be a reality. If you do, you are lying to yourself.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ok, I'm dying to know, who could invade us?
How would it possibly happen?
Some statistics:
Canada military (including reserves): 119,000 personnel, zero nukes
Mexican military (including reserves): 280,000 personnel, zero nukes
US military: (including reserves): 2,200,000 personnel, 1,920 deployable nukes
Please tell us how Mexico or Canada could invade the United States.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)
panader0 This message was self-deleted by its author.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)We declared war and invaded their country without having been attacked by them. We did that in Korea and Vietnam as well.
brush
(53,788 posts)the US, as part of the Allies, sent troops to Europe.
What's up with your post? Your history is a little off.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)
My comment is within those parameters. If you don't like that, how about Bosnia or Kosovo?
Kaleva
(36,312 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)They declared war as a result of the alliance, as did we.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... up and down that Germanys UBoat actions weren't "really" causes for war...
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The US went to war with Germany, and vice versa, not because of anything one side did to the other, but because of alliances.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Greece, Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Russia by the time the United States entered the war.
Do your apologetics for killing people in Middle Eastern countries that have not threatened our country have a point? Trying to justify our undeclared, aggressive wars in Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere by comparing them to Germany is, frankly, laughably stupid.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The OP asked what we'd do if a country we didn't attack invaded us. Based on this list and the OP's template, one could argue that the US did this to Germany. Say what you want, but that template (which was created by the OP, not me) fits Germany fairly well. While the OP wants to make this all seem very simple to understand, I'm suggesting that maybe it's not as simple as "if they don't attack you, you shouldn't invade them".
If you don't like Germany, how about Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Korea or Vietnam, just to name a few.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)understood perfectly well that allies of those countries would join in. That is not what the post is asking. It is looking at all the wars we have fought since WWII in the name of ideology. Korea, Vietnam, and the wars in the ME. We were not attacked by these nations nor were they attacking our allies. I am glad that I did not have to fight in any of these wars.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The US bombed and sent troops, yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone suggest the same thing about those countries.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... those are facts that aren't in dispute
hughee99
(16,113 posts)NONE of which resulted in a declaration of war. Although we hadn't attacked Germany, they declared war on us. If you don't like my example of Germany, how about Bosnia or Kosovo. It's a much clearer example.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)By going in we only encourage more hatred and give them more of an excuse for the violence.
Bonx
(2,053 posts)including women and children.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and classify any images of the carnage so nobody sees. For every suspected "militant" killed via drone strike, 30-50 civilians are killed. We know this, yet we continue to launch drone strikes anyway.
Why is that less brutal than what ISIS does? Because of how it looks? I doubt the surviving relatives of the victims of our brutality see much difference.
Bonx
(2,053 posts)Reply #12
including women and children.
That's you.
Bonx
(2,053 posts)I didn't see an answer.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)We don't release photos of our brutality in the U.S. because we like to pretend we don't engage in it. We prefer to point at The Other and obsess over their violence, and pretend it's worse that what we inflict.
You strike me as just another war apologist. Bye.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)was like having your home invaded? And the only reason ISIS is running around decapitating and immolating people now is because of that invasion, so you're really not even addressing the OP's question.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's one thing to reject the excuses offered for the wrong-headed invasion of Iraq. It's another matter entirely to pretend AQI and ISIS are in any way a legitimate resistance.
polly7
(20,582 posts)(But they are a direct result of what the OP asked about.)
Would you defend your country from foreign armed groups, and would you be an extremist for doing so?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The entire point of the OP is to dismiss the notion that AQI and ISIS are extremists. The point of the OP is to claim that those fighting the US were NOT extremists. Seeing as AQI was fighting the US the question then becomes, "Is AQI a legitimate resistance?"
Seeing as they and their ISIS counterparts are engaged in wholesale murder, rape and mayhem the answer is a thunderous, "NO!"
I'm an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms. And you?
But in the course of that defense I would NOT bomb civilian markets, decapitate journalists, incinerate prisoners or turn a blind eye to rape.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Civilian bombings, beheadings, immolating prisoners. It's all on the table, eh?
polly7
(20,582 posts)I would defend only against the people trying to kill, torture, kidnap, maim, rape my family, neighbours and ... country. Decapitation, torture, horrific ways to kill aren't my thing, so ............ no.
Don't put words in my mouth. It makes me think that's what you might do. eh?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You didn't qualify that statement and seeing as the discussion revolves around the tactics of AQI and ISIS what else could an unqualified statement mean?
Of course I'd be perfectly happy to put you down in the category of those who think bombing civilians, murder, rape and burning prisoners moves a group from being a resistance to extremists.
polly7
(20,582 posts)to kill a human being, but if under attack, I probably could make myself, so you just threw that out there - that I'd be a decapitating monster and kill civilians. If it helps you to not answer a really simple question yourself, you failed.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No, I don't know you. All I now is the topic of this sub-thread and your responses within it. If I erred thinking you were outside the context of the posts it is because no additional context provided.
The OP is attempting to say that it is no act of extremism to resist an invasion. It is a ridiculous statement because the statement is not qualified considering the acts of those who resisted the US. AQI and ISIS are vicious monsters. They ARE extremists. They are not a legitimate resistance. The OP is wrong.
You jumped into my sub-thread (and you are free to do so) and attempted to argue the right to resist. Period. Stop. End of discussion.
I affirm the right to resist an invasion but the manner in which it is conducted is material to the discussion. Bombing civilian markets, mass executions, immolating prisoners, kidnapping schoolgirls, beheading captives, etc. delegitimize those who claim to resist an invasion and reduces them to nothing but extremists, contrary to the assertion of the OP.
Is that so hard to accept?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Don't you agree?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Unqualified questions designed to gain unqualified answers that can be later be taken out of context are not my thing. The disingenuous make great sport out of such tactics; I prefer defined terms that provide defined answers.
polly7
(20,582 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)If you want to be a civilian you might not show up with the invading forces.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)evirus
(852 posts)Yes we would be
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)On top of that they spent as much time, if not more, terrorizing the Iraqis as they did fighting the US.
ISIS started its fight in Syria and migrated to Iraq. They too re not legitimate and they employ terror tactics against the civilian populace.
Contra the OP, both groups are extremists and not merely resistance movements.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I assumed being a Democrat meant caring about people in need.
Women held behind burqas, or girls like Malala, belong to countries that never attacked the US.
Does it mean nobody should come to their rescue?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... also interesting how they all live in countries with vast oil and mineral reserves.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)GW was one of the worst US Presidents ever, and Iraq was stupidity beyond any wild dream.
Does it make it OK to let misogynist neanderthals enslave women?
Stop girls from getting an education? Teach kids in madrasas 'Kill the Jews'?
Let me know.
randome
(34,845 posts)It also doesn't explain why ISIS & Company kill more Muslims than anyone else.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Oh, wait. No oil, no vast mineral reserves, just oppressed people, so we let those atrocities continue.
If you think our military adventurisms are the result of moral-based urges to protect the oppressed you're naive beyond repair.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-criminalization-of-the-state-independent-kosovo-a-territory-under-us-nato-military-rule/7996
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I mean, really, globalresearch.ca?
The US went to war in Kosovo over a pipeline that didn't even run through the territory of Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, or Croatia?
There is a certain segment that will contort itself into logical pretzels in order to find a menacing, evil, oil-driven agenda behind every US action. These people are generally fools who only get it right when they point out the obvious (e,g. Iraq)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)supported by rhetorical invective and no facts.
Do you really think citing the pro-Milosevic/Karadzic nutjobs at globalresearch.ca is going to convince rational people of anything regarding Kosovo?
You might as well have cited David Irving.
See globalresearch.ca's fine work on Srebrenica, for example. Any Neo-Nazi Holocaust denier would be quite at home on the website you cited for your silly theories.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=srebrenica+site%3Aglobalresearch.ca&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=srebrenica+site%3Aglobalresearch.ca&sc=8-31&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=c68ee1c7a3db4b6a8805689281668a25&adlt=strict
I like this title:
They also claim the ICTY murdered Milosevic by poisoning him.
Nice source, as I said.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The reason we spend $600 Billion annually on our military is to protect corporate interests, mostly oil. To suggest otherwise is incredibly naive, or dishonest.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bullshit, your argument is still nothing but a bunch of boilerplate anti-American invective and conjecture, without any facts to back it up.
The best you could do was some guy's claim, without any evidence, that the US started a war in the Balkans over a pipeline that didn't even run through the Balkans.
Which is just plain stupid.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... typical of right-wing apologists. Disappointing to see such lame arguments and tactics here on DU.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)evidence, is pretty much a standard mark of anti-American conspiracy theorists.
It's the old "the US is always doing evil, never good" bias present on both the extreme left and the extreme right, as well as amongst the old school group who were affiliated with Moscow during the cold war who stay true to their school.
The fact that you had to dumpster-dive in the Slobo Fan Club to find people who agreed with you on Kosovo should have been a giant red flag that you were probably operating out of bias rather than empirically sound perception.
niyad
(113,344 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)dissentient
(861 posts)and so the locals will greet us with flowers and cries of joy.
I thought I heard that somewhere, can't remember who said it though.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)samsingh
(17,599 posts)the taliban were executing women, children, moderates. they were destroying Budhist temples and statues that were centuries old.
saddam's regime were killing Kurds, Christians, anyone they wanted to.
we SHOULD NOT have invaded Iraq, but there were horible problems before our arrival.
randys1
(16,286 posts)and tanks, you are cool
If you kill with beheading your enemy, you are not cool.
WEIRD
ISIL does these horrific things to scare people right here on this thread so they will demand their representatives exact some revenge.
If you were solely concerned with the defense of Americans on US soil, the last thing you would do is send in troops, giving ISIL exactly what they want, giving them the ability to recruits thousands to fight USA...
The best thing that ever happened to folks who now make up ISIL or ISIS was when Bush decided to invade so he could get political capital so he could destroy social security.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)You dont have enough time to hear about myself and my family and our history with the US Military...
But I see you support our military (has nothing to do with rank and file soldiers or sailors) no matter what we do...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But facts matter.
randys1
(16,286 posts)We did it so one person could get political power and another could make billions with his corp (Halliburton), one of the results of said war is ISIS.
ISIS is the extreme of what we created, yes, and they are horrific people who must be stopped.
But lets not pretend who is at the base of all these problems.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And ISIL is not a resistance movement, but rather a movement seeking to enslave the people of the region.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ISIS wants war. It only takes 1 side to start a war. They will not look upon a lack of US involvement and say, "Golly, I guess they aren't coming. I suppose we should just all go home now." They will keep pushing, particularly against states in the immediate area, i.e. Jordan and Lebanon.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)malaise
(269,054 posts)Think about it - the Resistance Movement of WW2 would all be deemed 'terrorists' today.
It's fugging crazy.
Rec
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Sometimes it's for the best (Glorious Revolution), other times it simply makes matters worse (The Battle of Pavia). That leads me to believe that no two conflicts are precisely the same, and each should all be looked at via historical context, relevant detail, will of the populace, goal, result, etc., rather than relying on the simplistic framework of Yes or No.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)If the government was beheading sisters for having sex outside of wedlock or jailing my family for speaking out against the government I would likely be quite happy to do whatever it took to have my government overthrown.
If however I was happy with my government or at least content I would probably join the ranks of the resistance.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)They were detested as freelance gunmen with licences to kill or maim Iraqis, safe in the knowledge that they had the same immunity from Iraqi law as US soldiers. They often appeared to view Iraqis as a hostile sub-species to be treated with suspicion.
....In the crowded streets of Baghdad Iraqi drivers would try to keep their distance from contractors convoys because the security men would nonchalantly fire into the engine blocks of vehicles they thought had got too close. Sometimes they would simply shoot the driver and his passengers.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/21/how-iraq-was-turned-into-a-mercenary-war/
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Nobody.
Snow Leopard
(348 posts)If my country was run by a murderous dictator, who had failed to live up to the conditions of the cease fire, and a foreign army came in to liberate, I think I would do my fighting for them , rather than against them. Kind of like the French Resistance vs the Germans running their country in WW2.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)The brevity of your response speaks volumes more than your feeble protestation.