Re: [Epic] Rant was: Epic shock troops

From: richard milton baird <rmbaird_at_...>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 19:41:50 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Tony Christney wrote:

> >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_...
>
>

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

No offense, but I couldn't resist.
Rich
Received on Sat Mar 08 1997 - 00:41:50 UTC