Pages

  • Sharebar

They keep trying to insult everyone's intelligence by coming up with the most dumbass explanations for what they do. Case in point, this recent NATO attack on Pakistan. I'm stunned that people buy it. It's the most powerful country in the world, they can do whatever they want. They should just do whatever they want and not even bother explaining. Coming up with BS explanations only infuriates people more.

1 2

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (109)

  • MagicKarp's picture
  • UFOinsider's picture

    The day my government starts telling me the truth is when I'm really freaking out.

    Get busy living

  • manbearpig's picture

    Come to think of it, my favorite one is the..."Hey guys, we killed Osama Bin Laden...except we burried him at sea out of respect for Islamic belief that bodies should burried within 24 hours...even though we didn't care about respecting any beliefs when we publicly executed Sadaam Hussein on TV....oh and we also didn't take any pictures of Bin Laden or any other proof...but trust us, we got him!"

    LOL

    -MBP

  • Ske7ch's picture

    ^I still lol to that explanation.

    America is like hip-hop/rap music. I love it, but it gets really hard to defend sometimes.

    - Bulls make money. Bears make money. Pigs get slaughtered.
    - The harder you work, the luckier you become.
    - I believe in the "Golden Rule": the man with the gold rules.

  • TNA's picture

    How is NATO = USA?

    Also, why would the USA attack a known Pakistani military post for no reason? It makes no sense to enrage a country that we still depend on for help in fighting the Taliban. I really don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility that NATO forces were mistakenly fired on and returned fire not knowing it was an active and under Paki controlled military base.

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    I find it hilarious that you can sit in your office in Toronto and think that you have some higher grasp of how and why the government does the things they do.

    As far as your Bin Laden conspiracy theory; don't you think if they were lying the first thing the Taliban would do would be to send out a new video of Bin Laden with the next day's paper in front of him. That would, arguably, do more damage than 9/11 in completely destroying the credibility of damn near everyone in the upper echelons of the US government. But you're right, we're all sheep, thanks for showing me the light.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    rothyman's picture

    happypantsmcgee:
    I find it hilarious that you can sit in your office in Toronto and think that you have some higher grasp of how and why the government does the things they do.

    As far as your Bin Laden conspiracy theory; don't you think if they were lying the first thing the Taliban would do would be to send out a new video of Bin Laden with the next day's paper in front of him. That would, arguably, do more damage than 9/11 in completely destroying the credibility of damn near everyone in the upper echelons of the US government. But you're right, we're all sheep, thanks for showing me the light.

    Lmao

  • manbearpig's picture

    happy,
    I don't presume to know why the US does what it does, I just know when I smell bullshit. I'm not saying Bin Laden is alive. I think he died years ago and the US has known this but wanted to keep the boogeyman around so they could keep doing what they've been doing. When they decided to pull out, they made up this heroic story about killing him.

    ANT,
    Who knows what the motive is. All you hear after the NATO attack is that this may put a hold on the US's plans to exit Afghanistan by 2014. Maybe this was the intent because the US decided it wasn't ready to leave after all.

    -MBP

  • In reply to manbearpig
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    manbearpig:
    happy,
    I don't presume to know why the US does what it does, I just know when I smell bullshit. I'm not saying Bin Laden is alive. I think he died years ago and the US has known this but wanted to keep the boogeyman around so they could keep doing what they've been doing. When they decided to pull out, they made up this heroic story about killing him..

    I actually had dinner with Eric Haney in 2007 and he said that Osama Bin Laden had been dead for 2 or 3 years even then so I don't entirely disagree with this.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to manbearpig
    TNA's picture

    manbearpig:
    happy,
    I don't presume to know why the US does what it does, I just know when I smell bullshit. I'm not saying Bin Laden is alive. I think he died years ago and the US has known this but wanted to keep the boogeyman around so they could keep doing what they've been doing. When they decided to pull out, they made up this heroic story about killing him.

    ANT,
    Who knows what the motive is. All you hear after the NATO attack is that this may put a hold on the US's plans to exit Afghanistan by 2014. Maybe this was the intent because the US decided it wasn't ready to leave after all.

    You are right, who knows the motives. My whole point is that NATO fired on the base, not necessarily the USA. I've been trying to find an account that says it was only US assets that did this. I think people are a little too quick to blame the US for unchecked aggression.

  • UFOinsider's picture

    Since this actually became a serious discussion, here's the real answers.

    A. Firing on Paki base: a lot of the outposts on the border are unmanned or semi-abandoned, and non-Paki groups routinely use them to their advantage. Remember that we're dealing with thousands of miles of not-fully-controlled territory...there's a LOT of room for error: US soldiers are only human, mistakes get made, get over it. A side note is this: I've got a family member in that hot zone and according to them, if there's any question about who's firing at you, kill them first and ask questions later. The Pakistanis have been playing both sides of the terrorism thing for FUCKING DECADES, so as you can imagine, no one in the US military gives a fuck if a few of the assholes get whacked incidentally.
    http://thewe.cc/thewei/images2/aljazeerah_inf_apri...

    B. Saddam was a secular dictator and it legitmized the power of the new government to kill him. Long live the king, I kill the king, I am the king, long live the king. They bought him on TV in his underwear with a flashlight in his mouth to pop his tough guy image. Then, they turned him over to the Iraqi government for trial. They killed him, we just let due process take place. That's the logic, and yeah, the CIA kept on eye on everything to make sure it went according to plan.

    Because that's how we roll.

    Osama, on the other hand, was a religious leader and had no actual territory to control. That's why I never bought the bullshit about him working with Saddam: anyone who thinks this is a fucking retard, KISS MY WHITE ASS. Killing him made him a martyr and dumping him into the ocean is the only way of preventing his grave from becomming a shrine and thus a nexus/rallying point for extremists. The dumping in the ocean part is acually grabbing for straws out of the holy books, and isn't really required...it just serves our purpose.

    Simplify it this way: Saddam was tried and hanged by his own people as a head of state, Osama was simply terminated as a nuisance by US. I DO share your suspicion, and would not be shocked if Bin Laden was actually rotting in a secret prison somewhere...people understimate exactly how far that network goes.

    No offence to Canada or Europe, but the US has been handling your light work for decades. When you're ready to get your hands dirty again, FEEL FREE TO HELP AT ANY TIME as opposed to sitting back and critizing the fact that the US doesn't get it perfect all the time. Sending a dozen water trucks and a few contingents of reservists to guard the water trucks doesn't mean you have any skin in the game...or any real say. You don't like how we do shit, you go out and do better.

    ....and this is coming from a fairly liberal guy.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to TNA
    FinancialNoviceII's picture

    ANT:
    manbearpig:
    happy,
    I don't presume to know why the US does what it does, I just know when I smell bullshit. I'm not saying Bin Laden is alive. I think he died years ago and the US has known this but wanted to keep the boogeyman around so they could keep doing what they've been doing. When they decided to pull out, they made up this heroic story about killing him.

    ANT,
    Who knows what the motive is. All you hear after the NATO attack is that this may put a hold on the US's plans to exit Afghanistan by 2014. Maybe this was the intent because the US decided it wasn't ready to leave after all.

    You are right, who knows the motives. My whole point is that NATO fired on the base, not necessarily the USA. I've been trying to find an account that says it was only US assets that did this. I think people are a little too quick to blame the US for unchecked aggression.

    I think the link being made is because Pakistan have now closed the two supply routes for supplies to be provided for American and British troops. And naturally the White House would be unhappy with that. The US didnt perpetrate the attack but they're involved in the aftermath.

    China lending their support to Islamabad is also undoubtedly pissing off the US.

  • FinancialNoviceII's picture

    NATO have been given an out. I dont see why they can't offer an apology for the attack and allow the supply routes to be reopened.

  • manbearpig's picture

    UFO,
    You're predicating you argument on the assumption that what the US is doing is necessary or 'good'. I think this is completely false, for which reason I'm not saying I don't like how you do shit like this, I'm saying that I don't like *that* you do shit like this. The lack of regard for non American life is what myself, and the rest of the world have a problem with. Your whole statement that "no one in the US military gives a fuck if a few of the [pakistani] assholes get whacked" is exactly the problem. The US has not declared war on Pakistan, so they better care if those "assholes" get killed. Everytime a US solder dies, there are memorials with videos of the loved ones the guy left behind. Just remember that those 24 pakistani "assholes" also had families that didn't love them any less than your family loves you.

    Also, I don't buy for a second that they were fired on first.

    -MBP

  • In reply to manbearpig
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    manbearpig:
    Also, I don't buy for a second that they were fired on first.

    Why? You know that firing pot shots at military personel and fleeing is a hallmark of an insurgency right?

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    FinancialNoviceII's picture

    UFOinsider:
    No offence to Canada or Europe, but the US has been handling your light work for decades. When you're ready to get your hands dirty again, FEEL FREE TO HELP AT ANY TIME as opposed to sitting back and critizing the fact that the US doesn't get it perfect all the time.

    What a pile of bullshit. The fact that the US tends to lead the charge for action would suggest to me that they have a action plan. If that plan fails, the blame ought to be placed on those accountable.

    And FYI, there are British troops posted everywhere US troops are, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    FinancialNoviceII's picture

    happypantsmcgee:
    manbearpig:
    Also, I don't buy for a second that they were fired on first.

    Why? You know that firing pot shots at military personel and fleeing is a hallmark of an insurgency right?

    Insurgency being from the Taliban not the Pakistani military.

  • In reply to manbearpig
    UFOinsider's picture

    manbearpig:
    "no one in the US military gives a fuck if a few of the [pakistani] assholes get whacked" is.

    ...the reality of war: if you want to look at both sides of fucked up then fine, but if you're just going down the "the US is an evil empire, blah blah blah" road, then good luck, you're on your own. I didin't say I AGREE with any/all of the US's logic, I'm just telling you what it is. And yeah, if the guy my cousin kills turns out to be a Pakistani soldier, then fucking shame on him for shooting at American troops. Fuck you for thinking otherwise. Seriously. Fuck yourself. Dumb fucking kanuk

    I'm not getting into it with you because the last time I did I ended up with 100+ shits and my ratio has yet to recover. I'd throw one back at you but if not doing so puts this to rest, then so be it.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to FinancialNoviceII
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    FinancialNoviceII:
    happypantsmcgee:
    manbearpig:
    Also, I don't buy for a second that they were fired on first.

    Why? You know that firing pot shots at military personel and fleeing is a hallmark of an insurgency right?

    Insurgency being from the Taliban not the Pakistani military.


    My buddy was stationed at the border between the Stan and Paki. They took about 4X the mortars from inside pakistan than they did from the Taliban/Al Qaeda. Just because it can from Pakistan, doesn't mean they automatically assumed it was the Paki army.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    Khansian's picture

    UFOinsider:
    Since this actually became a serious discussion, here's the real answers.

    Osama, on the other hand, was a religious leader and had no actual territory to control. That's why I never bought the bullshit about him working with Saddam: anyone who thinks this is a fucking retard, KISS MY WHITE ASS. Killing him made him a martyr and dumping him into the ocean is the only way of preventing his grave from becomming a shrine and thus a nexus/rallying point for extremists. The dumping in the ocean part is acually grabbing for straws out of the holy books, and isn't really required...it just serves our purpose.

    ....and this is coming from a fairly liberal guy.

    The reason the explanation for dumping his body in the sea doesn't work is that Osama and his followers are hardcore Wahhabis, who detest the idea of shrines. In fact, one of their main targets tend to be shrines, and they detest Shias because of how much reverence they have for shrines. There is a wealth of literature and discussion about Wahhabism in the counterterrorism community, which means that they know it's a bullshit excuse to say they dumped his body to avoid creating a shrine. And, as you mentioned, it didn't need to be dumped right away anyway, according to Islamic law.

    Does no one remember how the US shaved Saddam's sons' beards and kept their corpses out on display for a week? Since when did we care about respecting religious tradition?

  • In reply to Khansian
    UFOinsider's picture

    Khansian:
    Since when did we care about respecting religious tradition?

    We never have. Hello? We pay public tribute to it as far as it furthers our goals.

    Again, I'm not condemning/condoning it, that's just how it is. In reality, we simply do what works.

    Get busy living

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

  • TNA's picture

    The USA does what is in the USA's best interest. I don't know why we continue to try and make it seem like we care about anyone but us. I sure as hell don't pay Federal taxes to benefit other countries.

    Pakistan was a strategic ally, never a friend. The country is inches away from falling into chaos. The military cannot control its own boarders and this is an issue for the USA.

  • In reply to TNA
    GOLDMAN911's picture

    ANT:
    The USA does what is in the USA's best interest. I don't know why we continue to try and make it seem like we care about anyone but us. I sure as hell don't pay Federal taxes to benefit other countries.

    Pakistan was a strategic ally, never a friend. The country is inches away from falling into chaos. The military cannot control its own boarders and this is an issue for the USA.

    the problem is that everyone wants to think that the world we live in is the same that Winnie the Pooh inhabits...The USA should care about its own well-being...

    the countries that criticise the USA for only caring for itself, are always dictatorships with no regards to their own people...blaming someone else for your problems is easier than blaming yourself

  • manbearpig's picture

    Uhhhh ok....................

    A) I didn't throw Monkey Shit at you UFO

    B) WTF is with all the hostility?

    C) If that's how you're gonna be, fuck you right back

    -MBP

  • In reply to TNA
    UFOinsider's picture

    ANT:
    The USA does what is in the USA's best interest. I don't know why we continue to try and make it seem like we care about anyone but us. I sure as hell don't pay Federal taxes to benefit other countries.

    Pakistan was a strategic ally, never a friend. The country is inches away from falling into chaos. The military cannot control its own boarders and this is an issue for the USA.


    +1 simply because

    The US tries very hard to sell other countries on the idea that it's in their best interest to follow our lead because in most cases it is. When the US is just grabbing selfishly, or playing power politics for it's own sake, or fucks up on some rather important details...then yeah, give 'em hell for it, they should know better. More important than short term material wealth or military dominance (these come and go) is moral authority, and I do firmly believe that for the most part that the US contributes more than they take, even if it's not perfect all the time.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to manbearpig
    UFOinsider's picture

    manbearpig:
    Uhhhh ok....................

    A) I didn't throw Monkey Shit at you UFO

    B) WTF is with all the hostility?

    C) If that's how you're gonna be, fuck you right back


    Fair enough, that was unecessary and I apologize. I'm a bit forceful with my opinions sometimes, but I am a US citizen and I do mostly support what our nation is trying to do in the big picture...even if there are some things that are really fucked up. A lot of nations blast the US on minor points, but realistically the US is a net contributer to humanity and I get real edgy when someone treads down the old, worn out "look at how bad the US is" conversation.

    I'm also just stressed out, I HATE end of month close...fucking people leave everything for the last minute, my shit's been done for days. Not your fault, I acknowledge this.

    +1 for at least not starting a shit storm.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to Khansian
    UFOinsider's picture

    Khansian:
    The reason the explanation for dumping his body in the sea doesn't work is that Osama and his followers are hardcore Wahhabis, who detest the idea of shrines. In fact, one of their main targets tend to be shrines, and they detest Shias because of how much reverence they have for shrines. There is a wealth of literature and discussion about Wahhabism in the counterterrorism community, which means that they know it's a bullshit excuse to say they dumped his body to avoid creating a shrine. And, as you mentioned, it didn't need to be dumped right away anyway, according to Islamic law.

    Does no one remember how the US shaved Saddam's sons' beards and kept their corpses out on display for a week? Since when did we care about respecting religious tradition?


    I have no idea what that whole thing with the sons was about, I'm still waiting for the DNA tests we were promised a decade ago. I'm THAT guy that won't let the issue rest.

    As for the other stuff: yeah, not the best move. You'd think DOD / State would have a feasable story lined up in advance for the occaison, they have all sorts of wacky contingency planning for other shit. Truth be told, it's entirely possible the body slid out the door when they hit a crosswind and they lost it, and the story was a gloss: shit happens man.

    Get busy living

  • manbearpig's picture

    fair enough, apology accepted.

    -MBP

  • In reply to manbearpig
    Jimage's picture

    manbearpig:
    Also, I don't buy for a second that they were fired on first.

    Right. I'm sure that the US Ground Force Commander, unable to read a map and unaware he was near the border, decided to begin a firefight with the Pakistani Army (who was asleep in their barracks, peacefully napping) and then use the VERY loose rules on close air strikes and target identification in Afghanistan to bomb them. Repeatedly.

    After all, Pakistan has been an honest broker and trustworthy partner in that theater. I could never imagine that they would fire on US Forces, for any reason.

  • manbearpig's picture

    "U.S. officials say they are looking for evidence that directly links elements of Pakistan's powerful spy agency to this week's assault on the U.S. Embassy and coalition headquarters in Kabul"

    Yup - that must mean they did it! After all, if the US is suspicious of something, then it must be true! How did that WMD suspicion in Iraq work out by the way?

    Also, as difficult as it may be to believe, Pakistanis by nature aren't any less intelligent than Americans. Why the hell would they fire at a NATO helicopter? Forget for a second whether or not they wanted to...they would be smart enough to know that they would get killed (which they don't want since not everyone is a crazy jihadi suicide bomber the way American media likes everyone to believe), and given the crazy chance that they succeeded in bringing it down, what would that accomplish? Reprisals from the trigger happy US? They wouldn't want that either.

    On the other hand, western forces are notorious for being extremely trigger happy (case in point, gunning down those iraqi Reuters journalists in the video titled 'Collateral Murder') and like UFO pointed out, they have a shoot now ask questions later philosophy.

    So I'm guessing they just saw a bunch of people near the border, and decided to kill them. And their thought process was: "if they're the enemy, great, if not, who gives a shit, pakistani lives are worthless anyway"

    -MBP

  • TNA's picture

    Maybe militants fired at the NATO forces, the NATO forces responded and the Paki's thought they were being fired on and then one thing lead to another.

    Plain fact is none of us know what went on. To make it seem like the US is always the aggressor and the one in the wrong here is to simply be as blind as those who always stand up for the US and make it seem as if they can do no wrong.

    I am sure there was confusion and wrong doing on both parts. War is hectic and shit happens. With that being said, Pakistan has been playing both sides for a while. This is understandable since the US realizes some countries have to say one thing and do another to placate their citizens, but when you walk the line things can become dangerous quickly.

    As far as that bullshit propaganda video "collateral murder", nothing wrong was done there. People who hate the USA will see what they want, but the pilots saw guys running through the streets with what looked like a RPG. They called into command, got authorization and fired. The second the threat was neutralized they stopped firing. US forces rushed to the scene, realized there were civilians there and proceeded to rush them to US medical facilities.

  • TNA's picture

    Also, please post a link where it confirms that US forces were the only ones who did this. It mentions NATO in every article I read. Link to the source where it confirms that US soldiers don't value Pakistani lives or randomly kill Paki's for fun.

    You post an article and then go on a rant about US forces this and condemning US military left and right. For all you know it could of been a European lead mission or joint strike with the USA.

  • In reply to TNA
    UFOinsider's picture

    ANT:
    It mentions NATO

    LOL we run that circus. When shit goes south, they take the blame. Cool, right?

    Get busy living

  • UFOinsider's picture

    Also keep in mind that some of the NATO troops (a very small percent) as well as the local guides they use may or may not have varying personal / national / tribal inklings that they act on. I do know that while US soldiers (and most NATO, I can't help but bust on them) are very, VERY professional but sometimes individuals just do their own thing. It's not a policy, it's just people / factions taking advantage of the situation.

    A good example is the local Iraqi troops that our soldiers work side by side with: if they decide to shoot an insurgent in the head after a raid because they don't want to be bothered with paperwork or a trial, there's really nothing anyone can do.

    Get busy living

  • MMBinNC's picture

    I think Pakistan hates us and if they had the ability to stand up to us they would. The possibility that OBL was in Pakistan, in a mansion, in a large city, next to a military base and no one knew about it is complete BS. The fact that those facts were released is why I think OBL is dead. I think the cover up lies in what Pakistan did. I think that they sheltered him for protection and because they hate the U.S. I wish Wikileaks had come out this year, so the government wouldn't be as protective as it is now- so we could see what really happened.

    On that note, I believe the confusion theory. In a hot zone, in the middle of fucking nowhere, in the mountains I think they could easily get confused.

    Reality hits you hard, bro...

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    eokpar02's picture

    happypantsmcgee:
    I find it hilarious that you can sit in your office in Toronto and think that you have some higher grasp of how and why the government does the things they do.

    As far as your Bin Laden conspiracy theory; don't you think if they were lying the first thing the Taliban would do would be to send out a new video of Bin Laden with the next day's paper in front of him. That would, arguably, do more damage than 9/11 in completely destroying the credibility of damn near everyone in the upper echelons of the US government. But you're right, we're all sheep, thanks for showing me the light.

    Happy, there is no proof of them actually killing Bin Laden. Our government has told far bigger lies, case in point Gulf of Tonkin and WMDs in Iraq. Implying that anyone who is reticent to believe the government is crazy is comical. Can you name a single thing the government doesn't lie about? I was debating on of my socialist/idiot friends about SS. I told him that there is no trust fund. None of the money was saved. It was just another welfare program funded by just another confiscation. He responded to my claim by emailing me SS trust reports saying that social security had 10 TRILLION DOLLARS. Anyone with a brain would know that this sum is made up, but most people will just run with it. I asked him, if there is so much money in SS, why would checks have stopped being mailed out if the government shut down? This left him a little dumb-founded. The government obfuscates heavily everyday and is not to be trusted at all.

    Happy, read about Fast and Furious. Where the DOJ gave a MONOPOLY for cocaine distribution to the Sinoloa Cartel. That's right, our government allowed a cartel ship cocaine in exchange for running guns into Mexico.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/6379403...

    Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada, the right-hand man of Mexico's most wanted criminal, Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman who leads the powerful Sinaloa cartel.

    Regarded as a major trafficker in his own right, "El Mayito" or the "Little Mayo," was arrested two years ago in Mexico City. Extradited to the United States last year, he is now in jail awaiting trial in a U.S. federal court in Chicago in February next year.

    The younger Zambada, who is charged with cocaine and heroin trafficking, is claiming he was an informant for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and WAS GIVEN IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AT THE TOP LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.

    I despise the government.

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

  • eokpar02's picture

    I love how people are adding credence to our presence there by arguing who dropped the bombs. Does it matter? Why not ask, why is the USA in a position to drop a bomb on the Pakistani border in the first place? What is there to gain in that shit hole? Our war on the world is just going to result in blow-back.

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

  • UFOinsider's picture

    crazy has just entered the building

    Get busy living

  • APAE's picture

    Up-repped you on some of your more salient posts, UFO.

    Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

    Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

  • cplpayne's picture

    I know this was news a long time ago, but were the Seals that were shot down not too long after OBL's death part of team 6? or different Seals?

    "One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

  • APAE's picture

    Also part of Seal Team 6, if I recall correctly.

    Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

    Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

  • In reply to manbearpig
    Jimage's picture

    manbearpig:
    On the other hand, western forces are notorious for being extremely trigger happy

    Clearly you're so confident in this statement because you've surveyed the practices of all the armed groups on earth, right? I would contend that the US military has some of the best fire discipline in the world, certainly when compared to non-"western" forces. The case you cite wasn't a problem of being too "trigger happy".

    You're clearly angry about US foreign policy, but you're painting with a broad brush.

    I believe that the US should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago, certainly now that OBL is gone. However, the escalating situation is making that more difficult.

    I would be interested in hearing your perspective on what role the US should play in the world. You've criticized current practices, but haven't presented any alternatives.

  • manbearpig's picture

    Jimage,

    I'm confident in my statement because US troops have killed at least 10 civilians for every 'insurgent'. It seems that either they're really trigger happy, or as MMBinNC says "confused" a lot, or they just generally suck at their jobs. In either case, it's unacceptable considering people's lives are in the balance.

    Also, my perspective on the role the US should play is to mind its own business and not try to police the whole world. They should defend their borders without concocting excuses to invade and exploit other countries.

    "the best part of war is the raping and pillaging" - 2 US troops in full uniform I overheard in Buffalo at a bar. While I know that this attitude isn't present in all or even the majority of troops, it is certainly significant and probably explains the excessive devastation caused by the two wars.

    -MBP

  • TNA's picture

    1) Please show the stats where US troops kill civilians 10-1.

    2) So you overhear 2 troops at a bar and this is your data point.

    Get fucking real.What is with this amateur hour bullshit.

  • manbearpig's picture

    1) Happily, I'll do some digging and update tomorrow. But suppose I do (and I will) find the stats, what does that mean for you?

    2) Buddy you're the amateur if you're naive enough to believe that the sentiment I described is shared only by those two people. Ever take a course on basic statistics? Assume a distribution of troops who have this attitude vs those who don't. Now what is the probability that the assumed distribution is correct if my only data point is a sample from the subset of troops who do have this attitude?

    Let me ask it more simply, what percentage of troops do YOU think have this attitude? If you say anything less than 10% then you are completely blinded by your patriotism (which, I must admit I do admire in a way).

    -MBP

  • In reply to manbearpig
    UFOinsider's picture

    manbearpig:
    Also, my perspective on the role the US should play is to mind its own business and not try to police the whole world. They should defend their borders without concocting excuses to invade and exploit other countries.

    America was isolationist for the first few hundred years but WWI, WWII, the cold war, and the jihadist attacks have largely made that stance unrealistic. For a long time, I've taken the view that America is an empire 'lite', meaning that while we DO exert a large influence on the world, it's largely beneficial. There are plenty of cases of mistakes, greed, and power grabbing, but the overall theme is to improve the world and prevent exploitative empires from wreaking havoc again.

    As an easy example, just look at the difference between the 1979 Soviet invastion of MENA or the Nazi incursions into Egypt and you can see one very striking difference: those empires were simply exploiting the resources and raping the hell out of the areas they conquered while the US is overseeing a broader transformation in addition to the resources it extracts. We also PAY for those resources: either with developement, money, weapons, influence, democracy, or some other currency. Not everything goes according to plan, and not everything is completely altruistic, but overall the motivation is good: and it's made a HUGE difference. The world has become a much less savage place over the course of the last century, largely due to the US's influence.

    Also keep in mind that a lot of the cases that sound 'morally justified' are really disingenuous ploys put forward by America's comptetitors, ideological hacks, and a variety of other pathological sources.

    As for the soldiers joking around: American soldiers are BY FAR the best around in terms of effectiveness and professionalism. A few guys blowing off steam and bullshitting in a bar can't possibly compare to what other armies in history have done. When we talk war crimes, we have what...a dozen or so actual cases by US soldiers in the last decade? In the big picture, they're not even a full percentage. Compare to regimens like Pol pot, the mongols (0.5% percent of humanity is related to Ghengis Kahn) and English 'prima nocta' doctrine a few centuries ago. I'm NOT saying the US is perfect, and I'm the first to blast them for real mistakes, but perfection IS the goal...meanwhile other nations (China, Iran, etc...) are pretty indulgent with their violence / human rights abuse. Civilians are affected in every war, but while others have made it the GOAL to kill civilians, the US really isn't focused on that...but it will happen. That's war, it sucks, but what can you do?

    Get busy living

  • TNA's picture

    Sorry pal, I am not going to guess on how many troops make inappropriate comments. And you are right, statistics never lie.
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    I did your homework for you. If you start looking at the numbers you will see large amounts killed by Iraqi terrorist bombings and small numbers killed by US troop actions.
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warl...

    109K deaths since 2003.

    "The Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks on 22 October 2010, contain 54,910 records compiled by the United States military whose numerical fields register 109,032 violent deaths between January 2004 and December 2009. These casualty records contain four categories of casualties, 'Civilian' (66,081 deaths), 'Host Nation' (15,196 deaths),'Enemy' (23,984 deaths), and 'Friendly' (3,771 deaths). "

    Here is the effect of suicide bombing
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/lanc...

    12K civilian deaths

    30.6K civilian injuries

    This is only bombings. It does not count other terrorist attacks.

    ---------------------

    To misrepresent your data as if the US military is wholesale murdering civilians is completely incorrect. These death tolls you mention include civilians dead since the invasion. Many of them are deaths at the hands of their own people, not US forces.

    Post some data to refute and I will look at it. Until then stop condemning US troops with made up information.

  • txjustin's picture

    MBP, I disagree with everything you've said thus far, except the isolationism issue. I wish we'd pull all out troops out of wherever they are and line'em up on the US borders. Could you imagine the shit show that would happen all over the globe after we did that? Hell, I'd watch smiling with a cold beer in my hand.

    Oh, by the way, it's VERY hard troops to get permission to fire. I know this because my brother, step brother and several friends have/are in war zones right now.

Pages