Kadaffi vs. Saddam = America's Disgrace

Where do you get this?

No Arab leader has ever attacked another Arab leader and started a war with them. Do you have any examples of this?

Open mouth.....insert foot! Good grief man, Iraq and Kuwait are BOTH Arab countries by anyone's definition. Iraq ATTACKED Kuwait and invaded the country which led to the first Gulf War.
Next!

The Arab world is known, as is that of Latin America, for NOT attacking each other in war.

The conflict between Iraq and Iran happened exactly because Iran is not an Arab country, and looks upon Iraq in a superior and hegimonic manner similar to the way the Pakistanis look down their noses at the tribal societies of Afghanistan.

I don't agree with what Saddam did in October 1980, but the Iranians have been the aggressors regarding Iraq for all time, and they still are today. Today Iraq suffers under extreme manipulation from Iran. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

.

As you are aware I have commented extensively on the Iraq occupation of Kuwait in the past and am obviously aware of it. My comments have centered on the motives for Saddam's actions [i.e. Iraq's legitimate claims against Kuwait, the go-ahead Saddam received from various US officials, etc.].

If this singular example is the only one you can put forward to support your sweeping and derogatory claim that "Arab leaders have always attacked each other and have been jocking for power" then perhaps you should reconsider your statement.

If we are to have an interesting debate it would be better if we refrained from playing "gottcha" and misinterpreting poles and providing only one example of anything in support of broad statements.

I'm interested in you views and enjoy debating with you but please....

As you are aware I have commented extensively on the Iraq occupation of Kuwait in the past and am obviously aware of it. My comments have centered on the motives for Saddam's actions [i.e. Iraq's legitimate claims against Kuwait, the go-ahead Saddam received from various US officials, etc.].

If this singular example is the only one you can put forward to support your sweeping and derogatory claim that "Arab leaders have always attacked each other and have been jocking for power" then perhaps you should reconsider your statement.

If we are to have an interesting debate it would be better if we refrained from playing "gottcha" and misinterpreting poles and providing only one example of anything in support of broad statements.

I'm interested in you views and enjoy debating with you but please.... Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Well if we're limiting ourselves to conventional wars then the Iraq/Kuwait war would be the only one. What I was referring to however were the power games many arabs have played in this part of the world against one another. Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians, the list goes on. I was also referring to the earlier conquest of Arabia by the Muslims. So there has been much fighting and bloodshed in that part of the world for a very long time, often Arab on Arab.....Hamas and the PLO are just one example, there are many more. Hamas had no problems killing however many of their Arab brothers they had to in order to gain control of Gaza and the killing is still going on between the two groups, though on a smaller scale than a few years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...u-s-internship

This is what an absolute joke our foreign policy has become. Qaddafi's son, in the U.S. at the time of the attacks, leads one of his father's Special Forces units (He's now back in Libya leading that Special Forces unit against the rebels). The State Department allowed him into the U.S.A. with open arms.....yet a few days after his arrival and after meeting with some of the biggest corporate businesses in our country, we decide that his family's regime is "evil" and must go. Then the Corporate businesses (now clearly embarrassed to have hosted him) claim they didn't know of his military affiliation in his father's regime.
What this shows is that we have no clear direction when it comes to our foreign policy. One day we're in bed with Qaddafi's regime, doing business with him, hosting his family, giving him access to new technology, the next we're dropping bombs on them. The thing that worries me the most about this enormous amount of ignorance floating around in D.C. is that they are more clueless about who the rebels are than they were about Qaddafi. In other words, we're helping an entity assume power that we have never had ties with, that we've never had diplomatic dealings with and that we know absolutely nothing about.
It's like watching an episode of the Keystone Cops......Sorry to say, there's simply too much at stake to laugh at the stupidity.

The seeds of this chaos lie in decisions made decades ago when governments eschewed Covert Action in situations where in the past they would have used it for regime change.*

If you take CA off the table then you've pretty much decided to co-exist with someone, and the consequences of that can be absurd.

To the Europeans Libya's as close as Mexico or Cuba is to us, so their feelings about him are much stronger. My friends in Italy, for example, do business with his son regularly. But as soon as his miserable ass in on the plane and leaving they curse and spit about him. The Europeans never really forgave him for anything, and would love to see him and his son both scattered around the perimeter of an off course 2,000 lb bomb.

*Unless I'm wrong I think there were some plots to kill him by the British and others in the 1970s, but they were bungled. Also, a lot of his personal protection was designed by Ed Wilson's CIA friends in a horribly mistaken project. For that matter at the same time the Palestinian who led the Munich attack in 1970 was for a time protected by a CIA arranged detail. According the the George Jonas story they saved him on more than one occasion. As crazy as this sounds, it was viewed that terrorism was impossible to prevent, so the strategy was to protect them in exchange for guarantees that they would not target Americans.

I agree that things have definitely not gotten better since CA was shelved as a viable option for regime change. I believe one of the problems was that the media usually managed to expose our involvement in these attempts leading to negative public reaction and backlash. Had Qaddafi been dealt with in the 70's or 80's, I would have had no problem with us taking him out. Quickly, quietly and and preferably after we've groomed a viable replacement friendly toward us and our allies or at least willing to play ball. Right now, as so often lately, it just feels like we're throwing punches wildly in the dark without any real clue of what direction we should move in. That usually has dangerous consequences.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...u-s-internship

.....
What this shows is that we have no clear direction when it comes to our foreign policy. One day we're in bed with Qaddafi's regime, doing business with him, hosting his family, giving him access to new technology, the next we're dropping bombs on them. The thing that worries me the most about this enormous amount of ignorance floating around in D.C. is that they are more clueless about who the rebels are than they were about Qaddafi.... Originally Posted by DTorchia

This is what I don't get. What happened? As I've written in previous posts, Qaddafi was appearing to live up to his agreements with the US. So he is embroiled in a civil war and killed some (a hundred?) of his own people led by a former cabinet minister. Another day, another dollar in the Mid-East game! So why get involved, especially so half-heartedly and half-brainedly(?)?

Seriously, what happened, President Transparency?

There were good reasons why CA was shelved. It was misused and poorly managed time and time again, and for every case the media learned of there were many other eggregious acts.

IMHO that's what happens whenever government bureaucrats are operating anything.

However it's loss as a tool has put us in this horrible situation of co-existence with this particular guy.

In the early 1970s governments were so afraid of him that they ended up cutting deals with him for their own protection. Then in the 1980s that sort of fell apart. That's how he ended up with 20 tons of American manufactured C-4.

He's a different case than any other of the region's ruthless authoritarian rulers.

He really is a pycho. He's the Charles Manson of world politics. He never kills for nationalism, ideology or anything understandable. He only kills for fun.

btw it's now widely reported that CIA paras are on the ground with the rebels now. I don't think that reporting would be happening if our government didn't want him to know.

For a different perspective than you get from the mainstream media!

http://feraljundi.com/africa/libya-a...nt=Yahoo!+Mail

http://feraljundi.com/industry-talk/...nt=Yahoo!+Mail

I'm very ambivolant about Private Military Contractors.

Eeben Barlow contends that Executive Outcomes provided security services to governments "abandoned" by others. But there were good reasons why the governments he served could gain no support by others. The governments of Angola and Sierra Leone he worked for were horribly corrupt and murderous. Although their military rivals were also horrible, no one came to their aid because they were not worthy of support. I think he did what he did for the money, and there's nothing wrong in my opinion with fighting for that reason, but he should be honest about it and keep quiet. Instead he's a publicity hound, and insists on miscasting himself as an altruist, which I think his history reveals him not to be.

If these missions are worthy I think they should be performed by uniformed members of services of the countries involved, as it's been for the last hundred years or so.

Private soldiers are extremely expensive, and I don't think they are held to the same accountability that "regular" soldiers are held to.

I'm very ambivolant about Private Military Contractors.

Eeben Barlow contends that Executive Outcomes provided security services to governments "abandoned" by others. But there were good reasons why the governments he served could gain no support by others. The governments of Angola and Sierra Leone he worked for were horribly corrupt and murderous. Although their military rivals were also horrible, no one came to their aid because they were not worthy of support. I think he did what he did for the money, and there's nothing wrong in my opinion with fighting for that reason, but he should be honest about it and keep quiet. Instead he's a publicity hound, and insists on miscasting himself as an altruist, which I think his history reveals him not to be.

There is no doubt that Barlow downplays the profit side and as I've mentioned, I'm sure there may have been payment of some diamonds or, at at least an attempt to get them, on his part for services rendered during the Sierra Leone intervention.

If these missions are worthy I think they should be performed by uniformed members of services of the countries involved, as it's been for the last hundred years or so.

This is where it can become tricky. Who decides if the mission is "worthy"? It seems today we can't go to the bathroom without getting the U.N.'s permission/blessing to carry out an operation. As we've seen many times, the UN can be a complete waste of time when it comes to protecting the populace. Their complete inability to protect people in cases like Srebrenica (Bosnia), Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone is well documented. In the case of Srebrenica and Rwanda, both interventions failed to stop the largest massacre of civilians since WWII in Europe and Africa respectively.
In all the above cases, the UN had forces on the ground (many times inept, unarmed or simply undermanned), with unrealistic use of force orders, operating under an extremely restrictive mandate and as a result, hundreds of thousands were slaughtered, literally while UN troops and personnel watched.
In cases like these it's been proven that a private military intervention from private soldiers can be effective and can save lives.
Like them or hate them, Executive Outcomes did save lives and did help put a quicker end to the conflict. So did the intervention of Mike Hoare's private forces (4 & 5 Commando) in the Congo in the 1960's. They saved the lives of not only Africans but of many Europeans who were trapped there at the time.

Private soldiers are extremely expensive, and I don't think they are held to the same accountability that "regular" soldiers are held to. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

This is debatable. There have been several studies done on the expense of PMC's (Private Military Companies) vs the military of actual countries.
Private Contractors can be used for the mission at hand and, once completed, they are no longer an active force that has to be paid and cared for like traditional military units. A Private Contractor doesn't receive health care, retirement, housing, dependent allowance, PX benefits etc etc. As I've stated, studies show that when you add up the total cost of what it costs the taxpayer to pay a U.S. soldier (including all the above benefits), then it can be cheaper to use PMC's.

As far as accountability, I realize that there have been a few high profile cases where there was misconduct on the part of Private Contractors. However, when you compare the % of misconduct to that of the military, you'll actually find it much lower. I love our military. I'm a Vet. I also work as an IC (Independent Contractor). Having seen both sides of this coin, I can honestly say that I've seen less misconduct on the private side than on the military side. Now when it comes to punishment for misconduct, again, this can be debatable. Usually an IC is simply fired for any misconduct. In the military there will be some kind of UCMJ finding with subsequent punishment. Most times, unless it's something serious, the military will reduce someone in rank but allow them to keep serving. In the private world, that doesn't happen. You're fired. No trial, no defense, you're done.
I'll give u a quick example. In my company, if you have an ND (negligent discharge) of your weapon, you're fired and on the next plane home, literally. No excuses are accepted, no defense, you are done.
The military by contrast has DAILY negligent discharges on their bases (in Iraq and Afghanistan). Yet, these soldiers are usually never punished and certainly NOT kicked out of the military.
I would say that the level of training of the average IC is higher than the average soldier. I say this because the average IC is usually older, has already served in the military and has had to go through additional vetting to get hired on as an IC. Many have government security clearances as well. So you usually wind up with a more seasoned, more mature individual than some 18 year old, fresh out of high school, US military personnel.

I think there's a role and room for both. I believe our country needs a strong, capable military. Controlled by Congress and our President with the checks and balances that brings as far as oversight. I also believe there are times when a PMC may be the better, faster, cheaper option (both financially and in the number of lives lost). A PMC is much less likely to get drawn into "nation building" or occupation. It goes in, takes care of the immediate problem it's hired for and then DEPARTS. This can prevent a populace that is at first appreciative of the intervention, from turning sour when the military sticks around too long.

I agree that the overall record of private soldiers in the recent past is as responsible as "regular" ones. I'm not opposed to people fighting for money either; I just think they should be honest about it instead of pretending to have noble goals.

The reason why I'm conflicted is because I believe in the modern age nations should only commit force in situations where the public is solidly behind the mission, and using an alternative to the nation's own forces can run counter to that.

What bothers me is that the operators I know who have worked in Iraq and elsewhere were paid as much as $1,000 a day for something a normal soldier should have been doing. It's just excessive, and there's too much profit and cost involved for it to remain unsullied by the perception of mercenary intentions.

Two of the EO operators I knew in Sierra Leone, "Lion" and "Lukie," went to work for Paul Brehmer in Baghdad in 2002, and played a huge role in coordinating security.*

I think there's something wrong with that.

Why would a superpower like the U.S. need the expertise of two South Africans who's careers are to work purely as mercenaries in very questionable wars to direct the efforts of our own personnel?

I'm not saying they weren't effective, but we should have that capability ourselves.

They also left working with Brehmer so they could join in an attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea, for which they were apprehended and jailed.

The U.S. also used airlift from criminal companies which had been otherwise working for the RUF in Sierra Leone, etc.

I think the real reason is because the U.S. just doesn't have the capacity in it's organic forces for the mission it faced, and the public wouldn't have supported a draft or other measures because the public wasn't really behind the mission.

That's were my problems in this lie.

*To illustrate what a huge change this is from the past let me tell one story. When I told a retired CIA officer I used to work with that Brehmer was using Lion and Lukie he refused to believed it. He told me he had worked with Brehmer in the 1980s, and that he would never resort to using people of such character in that kind of role. After he confirmed what I told him he called me back and said that "the government which we now have is not the government I worked for in my career." This CIA officer is a republican, a hawk, and an occassional guest on Fox News.

I understand your conflicted feelings. In all honesty though, when was the last war when our government acted only when the public was behind it? Certainly Obama didn't give two cents if the American people supported him attacking Libya. Bush certainly didn't take the public's concerns into account before invading Iraq. The list goes on. In some instances, when the American people feel the Government SHOULD act, for various reasons nothing is done.
Let's say a poor country is struggling to protect its population from insurgent/rebel attacks. Because the country lacks resources that any western power would be interested in, no western intervention is forthcoming to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocents. If a PMC has the capability and willingness to go in and assist this country in beating back the rebels, training up the country's military to handle future problems on it's own and afterwards the PMC departs.....wouldn't you say that's a worthwhile mission for a PMC?

The Brehmer detail must have been 2003 because we didn't invade until that time. Blackwater took over Brehmer's security in 2004 already so these two you mention couldn't have been there very long, most probably less than 6 months. Toward the end of 2003 Dyncorp was running the Brehmer detail and then Blackwater took over in 2004. The only thing I can reason as to why these two may have been there is to fill the gap from the time of the invasion until the government had the time to contract out the job to protect Brehmer. Like I said, at MOST I would say these guys couldn't have been on the ground there more than 6-8 months.

What do yall think about Mexico?
Thats the one that scares me since the border is about a 2 hour drive for me.

What do yall think about Mexico?
Thats the one that scares me since the border is about a 2 hour drive for me. Originally Posted by ski-hog

I'll put it to you like this. Most of the guys I've worked with for the past 6+ years....Guys who've worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa and the Balkans....who've survived road side bombs, snipers, suicide bombers etc.....they've all said the same thing when the subject of Mexico comes up;
"hell no I won't work there!" It's safer in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The truth is that the Mexican Government is hanging on by a thread. It has made no effort to deal with the chronic problems that have plagued Mexico for the last 100+ years. Abysmal low wages, high unemployment, poor education....the list goes on. Whatever small hope the population that remains there had that things may get better, the Narco-terrorists are quickly eroding away. From a security standpoint, many parallels can be drawn between places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The central government holds no real power in the countryside. Small town Police forces either cooperate with the Drug cartels or quickly wind up dead. Most of the politicians are corrupt and cooperating with the Cartels.
Honestly, I feel if we closed the border completely, the Country would implode. The fact that so many have been able to "escape" to the USA and support their families from our country is the only reason the people there have not risen up and made a serious attempt to overthrow the government.