Re: [Epic] Rant was: Epic shock troops

From: Tony Christney <acc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:39:14 -0800

>At 12:49 AM 3/5/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>The US Marines....Shock Troops!! Hard to believe!!
>>What about Somalia when the Boyz got their asses kicked back into the sea!!
>
>Um, I dont' think that's the way it happened. In any case, Somalia was
>another situation where the "rules of engagement" were ridiculously strict.

They needed to be ridiculously strict. Somalia was never meant to be a war.
Marines are trained warriors. They needed to be contained, IMO.

>"Okay boys, you have to go in and rout the warlords who are challenging the
>rightfully elected government . . . Everybody pass your clips to the right.
>Squad leaders collect the ammo and check 'em."

<RANT MODE ON>
Ok, this concept of America having to defend the rightfully elected government
of [insert country here] is a load of shit. If it were true, they wouldn't
be so selective of the countries that they help out. For example, they haven't
done shit about the sympathetic government in El Salvador other than sell them
more weapons and given them more training to enslave their own people. Yet they
have very deliberately attacked the rightfully elected government of Nicaragua.

How about the defenders of democracy? Well, they seem to have no problems with
the governments of China and Indonesia, who have taken away the rights of the
peoples of Tibet and East Timor, respectively. Nor did they complain about
Noriega (sp?) or Marcos, that is until these people were no longer firmly in
their pockets. Back to Nicaragua, they staunchly supported the repressive
regime of the Contras, while oppressing the _elected_ socialism of the
Sandinistas. In short, America does not defend democracy any more than the
Chinese.

As for being the defenders of human rights and free speech, tell that to an
African-American. They will tell you that all that talk about human rights is
a load of crap. And it doesn't end there. There are numerous cases where
people have been stripped of all of their personal belongings because they
are suspected of being in the drug trade. Often these things are done without
charge and the belongings never returned. The DEA has many aspects in common
with the Gestapo, the KGB, and other defenders of the police state. The more
important of these being the ability to arrest, search, detain and confiscate
without charge.

So you may ask, why does America feel the need to police the world? As far as
I can tell, there are two major reasons for this. The major reason is purely
economic. They simply can't have turmoil where America has vested interests.
Case in point: the Gulf War. America has huge amounts of money invested in the
country of Kuwait. If they had allowed Iraq to take control of that oil, then
their money would have been wasted. The line about defending Kuwait from the
expansionism of a madman holds no water. If it did, why no intervention on
behalf of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon when attacked by Israel (which
incidentally has had >40 UN sanctions against it, most opposed by only two
countries, America, which has security council veto power, and Israel).
Another case in point: Cuba. What is the purpose of the continued economic
war against Cuba in the face of almost universal world opposition? How
about the recent passing of the Helms-Burton law? To answer this question
you would have to look at the state of Cuba previous to the revolution of
Castro.

The second reason for American police actions is the "threat of a good example".
This is intimately tied to economics, but is sufficiently distinct to form
two separate discussions. This principle is the one used in cases such as
Vietnam and Nicaragua, where the people of a third world nation realize that
they would be better off without the support of a "benevolent" first world
power. However, the first world nations' fear is that these countries will
do so well for their people that their success will create a snowball effect
in neighbouring countries, effectively destroying the American "way of life"
by removing the cheap labour pool necessary to support their artifically high
standard of living. An important indicator of this principle in play is a
former colony economically controlled by foreign interests attempting to
implement a more equal socialist system of government.
<RANT MODE OFF>

>Actually, I heard it was more like, "If someone fires on you, you are NOT to
>return fire unless there are casualties involved." Under those situations,
>I'm surprised there weren't a lot of atrocities commited out of frustration.

My feeling is that there probably were some horrible atrocities commited
by troops in Somalia. If anyone knows what is currently happening to the
Canadian military over their actions in Somalia, they will see where I am
coming from. To start with, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded.
While in other armies, the Airborne may not be considered an "elite" force,
the Canadian version was. The regiment was made up of the best from a number
of feeder regiments (the PPCLI mentioned by A. Brain was one). Now there are
numerous high ranking officers being grilled by an inquiry (on TV no less,
just like OJ). All of this stemmed from the killing of two Somali teens that
had tried to break into the UN outpost. Apparently they were tortured before
being shot. Then there were the video tapes. In one a NCO in the Airborne
was asked how he felt about the Somali mission. His answer? "We ain't killed
enough niggers yet." No shit, he actually said that.

>Finally, to defend myself from further disparaging remarks, I didn't just
>make up this designation.
>
>Temp

Sorry about the rant folks. Also, I hope I didn't offend too many people.
I really have nothing against Americans. Almost all that I have met have
been very nice people. It is the foreign policy that I have a serious
problem with.

Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Fri Mar 07 1997 - 03:39:14 UTC