"China Says US History Is Littered With 'Humanitarian ..." Topic
23 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleIt's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 10 Apr 2021 10:09 p.m. PST |
….Disasters' Caused By Military Interventions "A Chinese state-backed human rights research organization is accusing the United States of a history of military interventions that it says have caused repeated humanitarian disasters. The China Society for Human Rights Studies said in a new report published Friday, titled "Severe Humanitarian Disasters Caused by U.S. Aggressive Wars against Foreign Countries," that the U.S. has "waged 201 armed conflicts among the total 248 that occurred in 153 regions of the world from the end of World War II in 1945 to 2001." …" Full article here link Armand |
Legion 4 | 11 Apr 2021 11:22 a.m. PST |
"People who in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." … at other people that live in glass houses too … China Society for Human Rights Studies That's a joke right ? No one can take that organization seriously … |
Cerdic | 11 Apr 2021 12:50 p.m. PST |
Well of course there is a China Society for Human Rights Studies. It's just that they have DIFFERENT human rights…! |
Tango01 | 11 Apr 2021 3:41 p.m. PST |
|
arealdeadone | 11 Apr 2021 4:00 p.m. PST |
Well there is truth in what they say. Studies have found civil wars go for many more decades if there is international intervention in comparison to letting civil unrest take its natural course (as horrible as that is). And American intervention in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc was nothing short of a disaster for those countries (well maybe not Afghanistan as the country has been a disaster since mid 1970s). Still doesn't cover up for 45-80 million deaths caused by the CCP in their own country or millions still kept in gulags. |
Legion 4 | 11 Apr 2021 4:41 p.m. PST |
Still doesn't cover up for 45-80 million deaths caused by the CCP in their own country or millions still kept in gulags. Bottom line … period … |
pzivh43 | 11 Apr 2021 5:08 p.m. PST |
So what is US to do? If a country that is an ally asks for help, we should just say, nope, sorry, studies have shown you're better off on your own? Good luck with that, and we'll see you on the other side. |
arealdeadone | 11 Apr 2021 5:29 p.m. PST |
pzivh43, That's both a naive and untrue statement. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc did not ask for "assistance" – they were invaded, or destabilised or destroyed for American "interests" (which were badly defined or nonexistent). Saddam and Gaddafhi did not ask to get toppled and neither did Assad. Serbia did not ask the US to strip Kosovo from it and turn it into a criminal run NATO backed pseudo state that ethnically cleanses Serbs. Laos certainly didn't ask the US to make them the most bombed country on the planet. Note little Georgia asked for American help when Putin's tanks rumbled in, but the US didn't help them one bit. Georgia felt quite betrayed especially as they had made a large contribution to American war on terror. Yet US has supported "poor little" Saudi Arabia and UAE slaughter civilians in Yemen and create one of the largest humanitarian crises on the planet because it suits American interests against Iran. Furthermore alliances should not mean supporting whatever daft ideas your allies implement. US did not support British and French in Suez because it was a dumb move that risked WWIII!
US also didn't really support Australia during East Timor and told Australia it was their backyard (and turned out Australia barely managed a non-combat intervention due to extremely poor logistical and planning capabilities eg troops sent without access to drinking water!). So the alliance issue is not really in play. |
rmaker | 11 Apr 2021 10:24 p.m. PST |
maybe not Afghanistan as the country has been a disaster since mid 1970s You're off by a few centuries. |
Thresher01 | 12 Apr 2021 9:04 a.m. PST |
The "China Society for Human Rights Studies" should investigate a bit closer to home, as in within their own borders, as well as those territories they've seized and continue to occupy today. When your enemies attack you, and then use the civilian population as "meat shields", they're the ones responsible for the outcome, as has been done in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Gaza and The West Bank, and other locations, arealdeadone. |
Legion 4 | 12 Apr 2021 9:11 a.m. PST |
If anyone expects anything true or honest to come from the PRC's/CCP's leadership for all to see … Well … I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you … |
arealdeadone | 12 Apr 2021 2:49 p.m. PST |
Thresher Uncle Sam or Uncle Sam's allies attacked those countries (except Israel/Palestine which is its own special poop show). There was never any reason to attack Iraq or get involved in Syria or Libya or support the Sunni Arab intervention in Yemen. In these instances US intervention aloowed extremists to grow in strength and commit those attrocities you mention. US policy lost the plot the moment Clinton sent troops to Somalia and never regained amy level of sanity. Hence the forever wars and speeding up of US decline. Amd massove humanitarian crises including the immigrant one that undermined European borders. So those wars didn't just destroy countries and lives of their inhabitants, it also hurt the USA amd the EU. Main beneficiaries save a few US defense contractors and military/intelligence officers were Iran, Russia and indirectly China. Legion, what China says this time is true. Just because your regime is monstrous doesn't mean you don't occassionally say the truth especially when the truth is useful and undisputable propaganda.
After all if Hitler or Mao said the world is round, they wouldn't be lying now would they?
|
Legion 4 | 12 Apr 2021 4:47 p.m. PST |
what China says this time is true. Just because your regime is monstrous doesn't mean you don't occassionally say the truth especially when the truth is useful and undisputable propaganda. I'm just a little suspect of much of what they say … not just the PRC/CCP but Hitler & Mao too. |
arealdeadone | 12 Apr 2021 4:57 p.m. PST |
Legion, So the world's not round? Every country lies and cheats and some like PRC do it a lot more than any others. But if you can't see with your own eyes the mess the US has made in middle east then you're as blinded by US propaganda as any PRC or Putin bot. |
Legion 4 | 14 Apr 2021 8:16 a.m. PST |
🌍🌎🌏 Yep, the world's round … see ? Oh … I see the mistakes & errors made by the USA at least over the passed few decades. Of course some is in hindsight. E.g.: The CIA's first thought was to just let the USSR & Muj bleed etc., other out. That would have been a better option, IMO as we saw in hindsight. If the USSR was busy fighting and killing the Muj, AQ, etc. There probably would have been no 9/11. And in turn the US and it's allies would not have lost lives, limbs, etc., and at least a trillion of dollars(?)[lost count] along with 20 years of wasted time. With little to show for it, IMO. Regardless the locals, terrorists, jihadis, foreign fighters, etc., etc., would continue their wanton slaughter of each other in both A'stan and Pakistan. With or without the USSR being there. Would there have been less losses to the locals in the region, both fighters & non-combatant if the US just left them and the USSR continue to battle it out ? Good question … regardless with all the religious, ethnic, tribal, warlord, mullah, etc., differences, affiliations/relationships, etc. The blood would still flow to one level or another. We will see once the USA pulls out again, similar what were saw in Iraq when we did the same. The locals, etc. left to their own devices will continue the slaughter. Of course once again, telling the media, etc., the date we are going to leave is just stupidity. So much for learning from history … We saw once the USA pulled out of Iraq, ISIS was born in the vacuum. And the Iraqis, etc., couldn't do anything to stop it. We will see similar in A'stan. With the Taliban, AQ, ISIS, etc., going full tilt Bozo and the bloodshed with only get bigger. The Afghan gov't, ANA, ANP will be of less use than they are today. Those that survive anyway. Once we leave, we will have to keep all forms of recon and intel, etc., to monitor the situation. To insure any of these forces/groups/mobs, etc., think they can become a threat to the USA. Use Drones, cruise missiles, even aircraft bomber assets. To slap them down. And to be really effective we have to put concerns about CD as mostly secondary. We have to insure AQ, etc., will not use A'stan, etc., as a staging area to attack the West, again. Killing many of them[AQ, ISIS, etc.] before this happens is a good start, IMO. And yes again CD will occur, it is a fact of war. We can only hope to limit it. Of course the second big mistake, IMO was GWII. At first it made sense to me, but hindsight shows otherwise, IMO. And we used to be able to fight a 2 front war. But in this case, not so[or even now really!]. Taking assets from A'stan to fight in Iraq only made things worse. And A'stan becoming a secondary front was an error … |
USAFpilot | 14 Apr 2021 9:42 a.m. PST |
China is smart by announcing this. It's all part of Information Warfare. The problem with the US is that we are too idealistic and need to be more pragmatic about warfare. You go to war for national interests, not moral imperatives, which is absolutely absurd. During GW1, the phrase "no blood for oil" became popular. I disagree with the sentiment, going to war for lower oil prices is a valid reason to go to war. Going to war to create democracy where none existed is a stupid reason to go to war. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to feel good about my country and think we are the "good guys". The facts show that the US is one of the most violent and aggressive countries in the world when it comes to exporting war. We are the only nation to ever use nukes in a war (twice). We invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, creating more instability in the region and increasing the worlds leading supplier of heroine. We need to cut the crap and get back to personal responsibility and say yes there will be some collateral damage along the way, tough luck, suck it up snowflakes and get to work. |
Tango01 | 14 Apr 2021 12:05 p.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 14 Apr 2021 8:02 p.m. PST |
|
Editor in Chief Bill | 14 Apr 2021 10:23 p.m. PST |
…and say yes there will be some collateral damage along the way, tough luck, suck it up snowflakes and get to work. Unfortunately, that's a slippery road. That's what the ex-SS soldiers said in Vietnam, to excuse their atrocities. |
Murvihill | 15 Apr 2021 8:47 a.m. PST |
The US is always wrong. If we intervene, we caused all the casualties of the war regardless of who started it. If we don't intervene, we caused all the casualties because we didn't stop the war. Legion 4 is right that foreign policy must be pragmatic, the US doesn't practice that consistently. |
Legion 4 | 15 Apr 2021 12:29 p.m. PST |
The US is always wrong. Yes, that is very true … the US is always easy to blame … no matter what the situation. Even by many Americans … Legion 4 is right that foreign policy must be pragmatic, USAF posted that, but I have said it before a number of times. And yes, collateral damage[CD] sometimes in unavoidable. But as I have said before, if we were not concerned about that there would be places on the planet that would look like the dark side of the Moon. Unfortunately, that's a slippery road. Yes and no … purposely targeting non-combatants is not CD. It's a war crime. But as we know in an insurgency in many cases you can't tell the insurgent/jihadi/guerilla/partisan, etc., from a local paddy farmer or goat herder. And sometimes by the time you know for sure in may be too late. However, in some cases, supporting fires are denied to units in contact for fear of causing CD. IMO that is very much a gray area. In want to bring all my troops home alive. I generally don't care about the enemy's or their supporters lives. Save for killing them before they kill some of my troops, comrades, or even me … 😨 A 0 – Sum game … IMO … |
Basha Felika | 15 Apr 2021 1:37 p.m. PST |
L4, I agree with almost all you've written on this thread but I believe sometimes purposely targeting civilian non-coms is a necessary evil in war to break their national will to resist rather than a war crime. Dresden and Nagasaki come to mind – war is hell, as a very wise man once said. |
arealdeadone | 15 Apr 2021 4:55 p.m. PST |
The US is always wrong. If we intervene, we caused all the casualties of the war regardless of who started it. If we don't intervene, we caused all the casualties because we didn't stop the war. The old school of foreign policy was that even democracies shouldn't have democratic approaches to foreign policy as it's complexities are far beyond the average person.
Basically foreign affairs should not be subject to vagaries of public opinion. Problem is in the US, war has become a public opinion tool. People see some 5 second clip of an atrocity somewhere, the media goes silly and the US goes off and intervenes military regardless of national interests or the true situation.
Clinton literally bombed Sudan to divert attention from his extra marital affairs. He went into Somalia and Yugoslavia due to media coverage. Yet the US ignored genocide in Rwanda as it wasn't a big enough news story. NATO destroyed Libya because of news reports of threats made by Gaddafhi (noting at time most of Gaddahi's airforce was grouded due to 30 years of neglect so he could not have bombed Benghazi out of existence even if he wanted to). ISIS was ignored until it became a news story. Even War on Terror was designed as a public marketing story (they literally declared a war on a tactic, it would be like having a war on AK-47s or war on sea-mines or war on enfilade fire!). It should have been a war on Sunni Islamist extremists but that would have required invading Pakistan, KSA and Qatar (and certainly not Iraq)! Then there's the US propensity to hold grudges be it Russia or Cuba or Iran or North Korea or whatever.
And then political decisions like refusing to withdraw from Afghanistan for literally decades – again designed to appease a certain section of voters. The war in Vietnam actually makes far more sense from a perspective on US national interests than any war the US has got involved in post 1993 except invasion of Afghanistan.
US needs to go back to a more coherent logical approach based on national interests. This will result in less use of the military to solve problems too. Legion 4 is right that foreign policy must be pragmatic, the US doesn't practice that consistently. Totally true. |
|