Tsunami Military Op? Why?

[nascarblue]

Why in the wake of the disaster, is the US military (rather than civilian humanitarian/aid organizations operating under UN auspices) taking a lead role?

Lieutenant General Blackman was previously Chief of Staff for Coalition Forces Land Component Command, responsible for leading the Marines into Baghdad during "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

US military aircraft are conducting observation missions

"USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, which was in Hong Kong when the earthquake and tsunamis struck, has been diverted to the Gulf of Thailand to support recovery operations" (Press Conference of Pacific Command, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/n12292004_2004122905.html

Two other Aircraft Carriers as wekk have been sent to the region.

Why is it necessary for the US to mobilize so much military equipment? The pattern is unprecedented:

Conway said the Lincoln carrier strike group has 12 helicopters embarked that he said could be "extremely valuable" in recovery missions.

An additional 25 helicopters are aboard USS Bonhomme Richard, headed to the Bay of Bengal. Conway said the expeditionary strike group was in Guam and is forgoing port visits in Guam and Singapore and expects to arrive in the Bay of Bengal by Jan. 7.

Conway said the strike group, with its seven ships, 2,100 Marines and 1,400 sailors aboard, also has four Cobra helicopters that will be instrumented in reconnaissance efforts.

Why has a senior commander involved in the invasion of Iraq been assigned to lead the US emergency relief program?

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/412A.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. War is peace

ChocoRations may be increased 1 mg. per citizen next year.

Big BushCo loves you.

[Birthmark]

2. I'm not sure that's all that suspicious.

When I was in the Army, there was a large earthquake in Guatemala. Several people in my little unit went there to work on the relief efforts. Almost went there myself. So, I wouldn't read too much into it.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Actually, because they're the best equipped to do it quickly

and they have everything needed. The ships can generate thousands upon thousands of gallons of fresh water a day from seawater. They have food and medical supplies on board. Certainly the carrier has a modern and well equipped operating suite and hospital beds; the other ships may also have them. They have trained doctors who can deal "right now" with trauma victims. The helicopters can run surveillance flights to look for and rescue survivors. Personnel are trained to operate under adverse conditions.

It really does make perfect sense to get the Navy in there now.

[CatholicEdHead]

21. Exactly

That is what they were talking about on the BBC World Service just after 0530 GMT last night.

Military forces are equipped for rapid response as other agencies are getting ramped up.

They talked about the UN working to coordinate future responses.

[zann725]

61. It would also be conceivable to "create" a disaster in order to send

troops (unquestioned) to somewhere you did not yet have them, but wanted to base them.

I don't feel comfortable with it, or paranoid for questioning it... given our military's record for involving themselves in places where people were in need, and ironically making them more "needy" and dependent on our presence and "support."

[Stinky The Clown]

63. Our military do not involve themselves

Don't confuse the warrior with the civilian policy maker. Our military has no authority whatever to go anywhere. The executive branch holds that power.

[Leilani]

87. Hear! Hear!

Blame the policy makers, not the military.

Also, let's all remember that the uniformed military was on record as being against the Iraq Invasion.

Iraq was a civilian screw up, Bigtime.

[Florida_Geek]

4. gee

"Bay of Bengal by Jan. 7."

Oh Bushie,,,, isn't that a bit late.

I do not see the need of a "carrier strike group" myself. Yes the USS Bonhomme Richard with it's copters and landing crafts makes sense to me but not the rest of the battle group.

[Streetdoc270]

6. not really

The crisis phase will last for about 6 mths to a year, so Jan 7th is not too late and probably the soonest it can get there after getting supplies. Also carriers don't travel without a battle group because of the other support ships that carry fule and parts for the aircraft. Also how would we react if a unescorted carrier traveled into an area that has known high terriorism activity and it got attacked ala USS Cole?

[Florida_Geek]

8. Lincoln carrier strike group has 12 helicopters (only 12)

Like I said, what would this add. The other ship has more hardware for the task at hand. The Lincoln is a F-18 carrier and I do not see a real need for F-18s in this crisis.

[Streetdoc270]

86. Its been a no-win scenerio here....

you don't send stuff its bad, when you send stuff your told its wrong, will anything that is done by the US to aid the region be good for some people? Yes the Lincoln carries f-18's it also had a modern Hospital, Doctors, Corpsmen, P3 Orion's and other supplies, resources, and also the ability to make DRINKING WATER, something that will be needed for a long time.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. And...

you do not separate the group. If a war does break out somewhere, you want it ready for action.

Besides, those support ships also carry cargo, supplies, and troops that can be used for the rellief work.

[NJCher]

5. I heard one leader/survivor calling for it

It was in a radio interview on NPR, I think. This person was being interviewed along with one other aid administrator. He said, "This is a job for armies" and he asked for nations to send in their armies.


Cher

[TreasonousBastard]

7. I agree with the others who say..

it's not suspicious, at least on the surface.

Any military, particularly ours, has a huge number of trained and disciplined people and the necessary equipment to send to assist the relief workers, and it's common to use them. It's only the size of the operation here that's different.

Disaster relief has been one of the primary missions of the Guard before they were deployed to war, and one of the big recruitment sales pitches.

I do have a problem with the team being set up, with Jeb Bush and Powell apparently being sent to "supervise" the operation. So far, the magnitude of the damage is so great that no one has experience with it, and the UN is trying to figure it out. With Powell&Co sticking their noses in, there may be no central leadership.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. There's a retired general who has exactly the experience needed

Wesley Clark, when in charge of NATO, led the effort after the earthquake in Turkey. I can't think of anyone more qualified for this. True enough, no one on Earth has the experience with this scale of disaster because there has never been a disaster of this scale. But when it comes to leading the efforts of disparate agencies and the nationals of many different countries, Clark has the track record.

Clearly, he'll never be asked.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. No, he won't be...

not after Powell was on Nightline last night talking about all his experience with disaster relief. As if they needed more reasons not to bring in a retired general they tried to disgrace when he ran against them.

Powell's last shot at leaving his legacy as Secretary of State, Jeb as hero standing up to Mother Nature... Nope, anyone not in the club has no chance of being asked to help.

India, Turkey, Bangla Desh, and China come to mind as having major disasters in the past few years, and there are plenty of people with experience in dealing with them-- vastly more experience in dealing with disasters in poverty-riddled countries than Jeb Bush has, but they appear to be pushed aside as we barge in as the heros of the moment.

But, so it goes, and we can just hope that the suffering don't suffer more and we actually do help.

[Tinoire]

24. May is just say, eloquently say, "ditto"? n/t

[Oversea Visitor]

10. seriously

They will be politely but firmly told that military presence is not welcome.
Having US military in Indonesia is going to be a big FUBAR
Scary a country with the largest muslim population in the world
200 million muslim, hmmm lots of nutcase running loose

Indonesia is one of the poorest country in the world
They have only their faith to keep them going
The Iraq war already piss off many of them

US soldiers might get kill.... Where the hell he keep his brain

[Wilber_Stool]

11. The military is used to moving large amount of cargo

in small vehicles. Small cargo plane and landing craft can get in were larger equipment can't. Especially air drops to remote areas. Large cargo plans can't land at most air fields.

[Pepperbelly]

12. come on guys ... paranoia strikes deep; into your life it will creep.

The Navy is perfect for this sort of operation and in fact, are the assets that can be moved most swiftly to the area with a lot of exactly what is needed. Others on this thread have well defined many of the things that these ships can bring to bear, not the least of which is air rescue, medical facilities, and survival facilities.

[PaulaFarrell]

37. that song's been in my head a lot lately n/t

[Pepperbelly]

41. these days, it's hard NOT to have it playing in your head, eh?

But did you ever hear the Muppets version?

:smoke:

[PaulaFarrell]

43. no, I missed that

enlighten me, please....

[Pepperbelly]

44. just saying they covered it, too.

And did a decent job. My kids thought it was a Muppets song.

:D

[itzamirakul]

13. They ought to take the troops out of Iraq and

send them to the tsunami affected areas. they are needed there far more than they are needed in Iraq.

BTW, I am starting a campaign to stop calling the people who are fighting in Iraq, "insurgents." "Insurgents" is a framing word, to make the rebellious citizens of Iraq seem foreign and inhuman.

[MileHiStealth]

50. I've seen "Iraqi Resistance" bandered about lately ..

in non US news sources ...

[burrowowl]

60. Insurgents is

just fine. Mexico City has a huge Avenue named after Insurgents.

[jmatthan]

15. Method used to determine tsunamis is useful

for the US Government to locate any form of submarine activity in the region.

The sensors are placed along the bottom of the ocean and then there are corresponding sensors on the surface. These are interlinked and these then send the data to satellite links - which is also how the tracing of submarine activity is determined.

The original sensors were devleoped in Penn State University materials Technology Dept., and based on the piezoelectric phenomena. The Marconi company in England also developed highly secret systems in this crucial technology. Similarly the Soviets had their own technology.

I have, however, not kept abreast of recent developments in this highly classified area of research.

When I wanted to arrange for some of my Finnish University colleagues to visit the naval research groups in the late eighties to compare results from our studies, they US scientists were barred from discussing this subject!!

The placement of these sensors in the Bay of Bengal will comtpromise Indian Naval Security. This is something that the US has been trying to do for years and years - ever since India bought the nuclear powered submarines from Russia!!

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

[shance]

17. What if another country, like China or Russia, sent its military in?

How do you think that would be received?

Don't you think with our rather glowing reputation these days, people might be well, a little suspicious of our motives? It certainly doesnt seem the most welcoming approach.

Werent we really low on military back-up and materials. The hummers and number of troops come to mind.

Why are we so lax in sending humanitarian aid I think is a valid question.

I also am wondering why we have become such a militarily focused country. Probably a stupid question, but we were not this aggressive certainly during the Clinton years. There was certainly more of a humanitarian effort enacted by Clinton.

Then again that is why Clinton is so much more respected around the world than Bush.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. THe simple answer to this is that the military REALLY is the best way

to do this. See the posts above.

As to the Clinton years, that's when the earthquake hit Turkey and we used the military then .... very effectively, I might add.

As to lack of "military back-up" in Iraq, that's mostly the Army. The relief operation will be mostly Navy with some Air Force.

If Russia or China sent in their military, that would only serve to help, not harm.

[IStriker]

34. I would suggest to you that we are "such a militarily focused country"...

because we have spent the past half century keeping the peace in this world or trying to do so. You ask, "Weren't we really low on military back-up and materials?" In the next sentence you ask, "Why are we so lax in sending humanitarian aid I think is a valid question." Just how are we lax in being there with aid? Our military plans for emergencies and does not expend every last bit of back-up or materials so we can respond if need be. As to your remark about our being much more aggressive than we were during the Clinton years, have your forgotten 9/11? That certainly changed the attitudes of most people even if it had no effect on you.

How do I think it would be received by us (or by the people that are suffering the emergency) if China or Russia's military showed up to help in one of these dire emergencies? I don't know what the suffering people would think, but my guess is, we would be thrilled to have our burden lightened by having someone else's military show up with men and supplies. Just don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. They wait for us to respond if it happens in their homeland so don't wait for them to offer humanitarian aid (read their stuff given away) to some other country.

[shance]

83. Keeping Peace or reaping profits through someones devastation and tragedy?

I hope this will not be the case, however after the horrific abuses that have occured in Iraq in the name of "liberation", I think it warrants a little skepticism and strict observation.

We are already hearing and seeing patterns of the same cast of individuals seemingly making their lists and checking it twice. Is it me, or is there a pattern growing here?

The most honest account on how a small wealthy group of businesses and businessmen have used our military often for their own exploitation and accumulation of wealth comes from a small, easy to read book called "War is a Racket".

General Butler was (and I believe still is) the highest ranked officer of the U.S. Marine Corps. I have heard he's the most respected military officer, certainly within the Marine Corps.

Quote:

"I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street, and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."

From the book, War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler

It might serve you better to read his book which calls big business and even elements of his own military on the floor, and Butler explains the truth about how our boys and the girls (and men and women) in the military are most often used by big business and our government.

[Guaranteed]

19. Well, one of my biggest concerns with this has been that supplies

won't be getting to the people who need them if gangs mug the aid workers. It's something you have to think about, as in all of these kinds of situations.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. All the more reason to use the military

Plus, with air cushion craft they can literally land anywhere with huge loads of supplies.

[blackangrydem]

20. Because the military receives a mission and carries it out

effectively.

[htuttle]

22. When all you know how to use is a hammer,...

...every problem looks like a nail.

But as long as they don't start bombing anyone, they could be a lot of help.

[Contrary1]

25. Because the US has to be in charge of EVERYTHING!... n/t

[Tinoire]

27. Whhhommmp, there it is! n/t

[Tinoire]

26. Mu answer is contained in post 7 but my emphasis is bolded here

it's not suspicious, at least on the surface.

The military can help in ways most of us can't appreciate. What bothers me is what Bush is capable of using this for.

There's nothing like watching the New World Order unfold before your very eyes, so THANK YOU FOR ASKING QUESTIONS.

In answer to your last question why has a senior commander involved in the invasion of Iraq been assigned to lead the US emergency relief program?....

Haiku (or whatever)

$250 million in aid
and rising
Halliburton
is
on its way.

Bush chooses his words more carefully than we give that criminal credit for.

==============

Describing the $20 million as a "line of credit," Ereli said, "We have identified an additional $20 million that we will be working to make available" to countries struck by the worst natural disaster in four decades.....

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/40083.htm

Daily Press Briefing
Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
December 28, 2004

(snip)

QUESTION: Adam, can you just -- the $20 million, exactly what is the status of that? Is that to be disbursed fairly soon or is it just --

MR. ERELI: Like the $11 million, it will be -- the 11 million additional, it will be disbursed to our missions and to local NGOs and other organizations as the need arises. The way to think of it is as a line of credit, frankly, that here is money available to be drawn upon to get equipment, to develop capacity, to provide supplies and relief to the people in need, as those needs are identified and as the institutions are identified that are capable of making use of the money. So think of it as a line of credit to be drawn down upon, as opposed to just a pot of money to be thrown out there.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/12/28/national1454EST0571.DTL


QUESTION: Is it cash, credits and goods, or all three, or what?

MR. ERELI: I believe it's credit. It's basically money available to pay bills.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/40083.htm

====
WHAT BILLS DO YOU ASK? As soon as Clinton put Chimp Boy in his place re his callousness & the 'US' position as 'world leader' and Chimp Boy heard that aid had reached $250 million....

U.S. President George W. Bush said Wednesday the United States, India, Australia and Japan have formed an international coalition to coordinate worldwide relief and reconstruction efforts.

He pledged a multifaceted response that goes far beyond the initial U.S. pledge of US$35 million (euro26 million), including U.S. military manpower and damage surveillance teams in the short term and long-term rebuilding assistance.

(snip)

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/12/30/latest/20443Richestna&sec=latest

[zulchzulu]

28. Some Al Qaeda strongholds in Indonesia and LOTS of oil, gold and copper

I'd say it's a perfect time for the US to move in on the area and make sure all the Freeport McMoRan facilities are up to speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeport-McMoRan

Snip:

"Best known for its Grasberg mine in Papua, the company is the largest tax payer to the Indonesian government; mines and mills ore containing copper, gold and silver for the world market; and denies allegations of on-going human rights abuses and theft of native properties."

[IStriker]

29. Why? Because that's the only way to get anything done...

in an emergency and we have the only military in the world that can respond rapidly with what is needed. Remember Somalia before the mission was changed to get whatever the guy's name was, the Warlord? The UN is a joke and is in a downward spiral to nothingness. They can't accomplish anything without asking us to do it and no other country has the ability to act except us for anything except something really teeny.

[Donna Zen]

32. UN has the trust and the organizational structure:

The UN has neither the money nor the "lift" capacity to do this job. There has never been a need because the US and other militaries have always been part of emergency planning.

If one has problems with the UN then be specific with both the criticism and any proposed solutions. Otherwise, as the saying goes...you're part of the problem. The US created the UN, and the whiners need to accept the responsibility for advocating for change.

Bush hates the UN too; his base refers to the institution as the anti-Christ. The wing-nuts have managed to read some poorly written propaganda, The Left Behind novels. Bush and Co. hate the UN because the world tries to stop the regime from bombing the fuck outta people.

It disgusts me that bush and his blind followers are using a world tragedy to further their corrupt agenda. Core Group my ass.

[IStriker]

33. Sorry! I much prefer to have our military on my side than the UN...

a corrupt organization largely made up of the people who would like to see YOU and me dead. We might have created it, but it is hardly what the founders envisioned as a place where peace could be pursued through diplomatic means. Instead it has become a place where the corrupt and evil congregate to try to figure out how best to rip us off and kill us.

As to your religious references, I am not anti-Christian as you appear to be, but I seriously doubt that there are religious reasons why more and more people are awakening to the true purposes of the UN as it is currently configured. Since I am not anti-American or anti-Israeli, I am unable to agree with you about who has the corrupt agenda.

[Donna Zen]

35. Anti-Christian?

Again:

A corrupt organization--As you know, the UN oil for food program has recently been cleared of wrong doing. We created the organization and have the leverage to make any changes you--or those who think that the UN does not function up to the standards that were set for it. I suggested specifics criticisms with solutions; I had hoped to see any answer to my post include them.

I had no idea that finding the "Left Behind" books anything other than cheap propaganda as the branding identification of someone who is, as you so casually and without any other information, threw out, Anti-Christian. Rude and wrong. (How wrong? You have no idea.) Although, I do believe that some people's religious beliefs are being manipulated so as discredit and eventually destroy the only world wide promise of dialog over guns.

As far as the UN being made up of people who want to see us dead; now for that statement I truly pity you. Truly. And I will remember you in my prayers that you may one day be willing understand the words of the good Samaritan.

Our conversation is now over.

[IStriker]

52. " UN oil for food program has recently been cleared of wrong doing." ???

Where on earth did you get that? Even the UN's own investigation of itself has not been completed. Perhaps you had better do some reading on the status of the multiple investigations unless you choose to take Mr. Annan's word as to how he would like to see the investigations end without regard to the facts of the situation. If this ill informed remark is any indication of your knowledge of this matter, you are correct that our conversation is over.

[spotbird]

76. At least there is an investigation into potential wrongdoing.

Unlike the corruption within the US military and contractors. There are more checks on the UN then there are on DOD.

[IStriker]

77. The UN is outside anybody's law and is as corrupt as it gets.

[spotbird]

80. You don't know much about the US DOD then.

It is setting new standards for corruption with absent accountability, they are outside anyone's law.

The system was designed for checks and balances, with absolute power falling to one group the fox is guarding the hen house.

[spotbird]

36. Well you're mistaken about that.

Since George HW Bush slashed military spending, followed by Clinton adopting the HW military budget plan, with the help of the Republican congress of coarse, things became a little lean over at DOD. This was made worse by Rumsfeld's delusional war planning in Iraq, and now catastrophic in light of declining recruitment.

Naturally, the international contempt resulting from the invasion means that we couldn't get a respectable coalition to retrieve a litter of puppies from a sewer, but hey we're the Marlboro nation, not a bunch of sissies who want to consider other nation's perspectives.

If only Clinton had stood strong against the Republicans and created his own plan for a strong military, but the Republicans wanted it their way...

[IStriker]

54. The fact remains that we are the only military that can act rapidly...

in an emergency and has the ability to transport men and material to where it is needed. Canada had to bum a ride with the Russians in order to get troops to Haiti! All the countries that claim to be so much more humanitarian than we are have destroyed their militaries (of course knowing that if worse comes to worst, they can count on us for protection) and are worthless in an emergency because they don't even have the ability to get themselves to the site.

I'm not even going to respond to your silly ravings about how pitiful our military has become. Ask the people who are suffering if they are happy to see us arrive with manpower and supplies. Even the Iranians were glad when we showed up to help with the earthquake. None of this ever changes world opinion (or evidently yours) about how terrible this country is, but we do get the job done and nobody else does.

[spotbird]

69. Things have changed since the earthquake.

Sure people are glad for aid, but I'm not so sure anyone counts on us these days. The reason we are so stingy with aid is that we've exhausted our resources.

You're silly view of our military strength doesn't address the reality that manpower is suffering, the VA is an embarrassment and soldiers have to protect themselves with garbage.

[IStriker]

72. Please explain what the VA has to do with our military relief ability

[spotbird]

75. That would go to recruitment, funding and morality.

Charity begins at home and all that. If a young person sees that they won't be cared for if they are injured during service they would be less likely to sign on, aggravating already strained staffing. Also it drives home the point that we don't have enough money to support the military without any other foreign ventures.

What is incredible is that there is still someone in America that is unaware that the military is stretched to the limit, here I thought everyone knew that a crisis (or draft) is on the horizon.

[IStriker]

78. The regular military has no recruitment problems...

only the reserves which is understandable considering the burden that has been placed on them

[spotbird]

79. The only reason recruitment goals were achieved is

that standards have been reduced. Eventually they will tap out on even those who shouldn't have qualified in the first place. African Americans are running from the military now where formerly they saw it a ticket to the middle class. The cushion of recruits for the next cycle is half of what it should be. There is indeed a crisis looming.

[IStriker]

81. When our military crashes, we'll just call the UN! Hope that suits you

[spotbird]

82. What would suit me is responsible leadership with

sensible planning.

The current system of denial embraced by you and the current administration is what will lead us to disaster. But hey, pretending there isn't a problem has worked so far, so we'll go with it. They'll blame Clinton, or the Democrats so why address the problem?

[IStriker]

84. There is no way you will change my mind in regard to US or UN...

so this is a waste of your time and mine. My husband is retired military and after spending almost all of my adult life looking at how the US military operates and also an up-close and personal look at how the UN handles military operations, and how NATO does things, there is no comparison. I have problems with how the DOD is operated going all the way back to Jimmy Carter, but there is no comparison with the ineptness and corruption found in UN operations as well as the absolute lack of accountability. All of the countries I know of who participate on a regular basis in UN military and humanitarian operations have had their militaries ruined and corrupted by the UN (like Canada who is now known for their pedophile military and the torturing of the people they are sent to help. If you don't believe me, read the Canadian papers; they know it and it's being reported.) The UN operations destroy discipline which is the basic building block of a good military. The less our military has to do with the UN, the better.

The reason we are not having recruiting problems is the $ 15,000+ cash bonuses to re-up. I agree with you about the lowering of standards (particularly physical ones) in order to qualify more people. I am totally against a PC military. I would have one standard for the military with the only goal being the best we could make it and another one for gov't., business, etc. that is designed to give people formerly left behind a leg up.

[spotbird]

85. You are sadly mistaken about the likelihood of

the military potential for continuing to meet staffing goals. The 15k will help but there is a reason for the stop loss orders, recall of the retired reserves etc. It is particularly interesting that you chose to ignore that the Guard didn't even come close to meeting goals. Since we use the Guard as active duty now, that fact alone is indicative of a problem. You also conveniently ignore the reality that the cushion of recruits for next year is less than half of the traditional standard. Instead you selectively focus on the fact that active duty met goal by the skin of their teeth this year with historically aggressive recruiting and reduced standards. This selective focus is the same blissful ignorance that drives almost all policy in Washington these days. I long for responsible leadership which addresses problems when they manifest themselves. You prefer to ignore realities.

It is ironic that you complain about Canadian human rights abuses. I haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about but I'm certain you find no problem with our new Attorney's General view that torture is an acceptable method of interrogation (ignoring the overwhelming evidence that it is an ineffective means of obtaining intelligence). If human rights abuses are acceptable for us we have no standing to complain about it from others. We can no longer claim the moral high ground.

[sandnsea]

38. UN is best at humanitarian relief

This is actually what they're very good at. I have no problem with our military being sent, that's the nature of our country's response structure. On 9/11, wildland firefighters were sent to set up overhead in NYC, because they're best at organizing large movements of people with very different assets and goals. On a larger scale than that, it's the UN that knows what it's doing. The US military is great at initial defense strikes and following orders, but not so great at responding to civilian crises. That's why Iraq is a downward spiral to nothingness.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Just which emergencies would you be talking about...

as I seem to remember earthquakes in India, Japan, and Turkey, several monsoons in Bangla Desh and China has had hundreds of thousands die in earthquakes and flash floods.

And all of those refugee camps in Africa?

How, specifically, did our military come in and save the day?

Terribly sorry, but the US has been often as not ignoring or hampering international relief efforts unless they have something to do with our other objectives. The UN does not wish us to die, but would prefer it if we did not interfere with its stated missions and screw things up.

The military of any nation does have special capabilities that come in handy for these operations, but it is not a "relief" agency and has no business trying to run the show. Other nations' military units are regularly used for logistics and security when we decide we can't be bothered. They usually do simply what they are told to do, though.

[IStriker]

56. How about the Iranian earthquake for openers...

How about how did the UN "come in and save the day?" Most of the UN refugee camps have a UN agenda and believe me, it's not the agenda of the US.

"Other nations' military units are regularly used for logistics and security when we decide we can't be bothered." More like they are willing to use their militaries when it's in their own interest (like France in their former colonies in Africa to protect their own people) but if it's not in any countries' interest or if it's a really REALLY big job, then it's our problem (like the French humanitarian donation to this effort, all of $ 136,000. What a joke! But they black creped their New Year's Eve party so their heart is in the right place. Right?)

Would it make you feel better if our military did "simply what they are told to do" by the UN? Well, it would NOT make me feel better and I truly hope that never comes to pass.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. Well, that's just too bad...

that the "UN agenda," whatever that is, doesn't square with ours. It's not supposed to, since there are a few hundred countries out there that have their own problems and agandas.

And a number of them that have quite adequately solved their problems without our assistance.

At any rate, aside from logistical assistance, I can't imagine any possible expertise that we have that is not already in the hands of those who have actually worked in, say, Bangla Desh typhoons.

I'll take blue helmets over bullshit any day.

[Leilani]

30. Like clockwork, the military haters turn up

& piss on good work being done.

I seem to remember many arguing FOR military assistance in Haiti.

[Tinoire]

31. Really? Would you care to link to those thread

so we can dissect which camp was advocating for that?

Much obliged.

[Leilani]

39. No, I don't have a link.

However, I read most of the threads following the situation in Haiti, following the coup, overthrow, whatever you want to call it, about Aristede.

We sent Marines, a small contingent, & withdrew them rather quickly. The situation was discussed, & some people thought more American troops would help stabilize the situation for the Haitians. As I remember, things were quite perilous for a time: people in danger, rioting, food shortages, etc.

Leaving aside the American policy towards Haiti, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the best way to handle things.

When Clinton was Prez & went into Haiti, similar situation.

Edited to add: The military can be used as a force for good or evil. The problem is not with the military, it's with the people in Washington that give them their orders.

[htuttle]

40. Huge difference

When Clinton was in office and sent the Marines to Haiti, it was to restore the democratically elected President of Haiti.

When Bush sent the Marines to Haiti, it was to overthrow Aristide and fly him to exile.

I don't think there is any qualitative difference in the Marines involved -- it all has to do with why they were sent.

[Leilani]

45. Yes, it was a huge difference.

However, my point is that some people weren't thrilled at the time of the Clinton mission.

Look at Soamlia: started out as strictly humanitarian to relieve human suffering & morphed into a strategic FUBAR.

I think the military can be used very successfully in humanitarian crises for all the reasons listed by other posters. However, if the mission is changed by the folks in Washington, that's not the fault of the military.

[Tinoire]

47. There are no threads at DU reflecting

enthusiastic support for Clinto's mission especially since DU didn't exist back then; the only thing there is are people pointing out the differences in how & why the aid was sent. I can point you to plenty of posts by DUers who saw through Clinton's globalist Haiti-related bull-shit too.

When you can link to the threads where DUers were enthusiastic about Bush sending the military to "help" Haiti, I'd be much obliged. As a American of Haitian descent, I was ALL over those threads and don't recall a whiff of enthusiasm or anyone believing any good was intented.

I call bull-shit on your original post. The poing about the military not being all-bad is valid but the rest is BS.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I think you should ratchet down the tone

The fact that you have a meaningful point to make does not excuse the tone you are taking in my opinion. Leilani is an honorable poster. Many Democrats did think going into Haiti to restore Aristide was a good thing even if you are correct about current DUers "seeing through it". I was ambivalent but leaned positive about the intervention at the time. From what I could tell then Aristides people were not happy with the U.S. but did overall want our military help in restoring him. I am not claiming to have all the facts. I am not claiming to be right. I am just saying I think your attitude is overly sharp in this dialog. Some of us still want to believe that the United States Government, under at least somewhat responsible and human leadership, is capable of at least sometimes using our military in ways that are not primarily negative. That is really the point. Not whether or not other agendas made our intervention in Haiti primarily a negative thing for the long suffering people of that nation who in large measure have long suffered because of the United States.

I know you are not knee jerk anti military. I know you have very good reasons for being skeptical about the use of America's military in this or that case, if not down right vehemently opposed. I don't think Leilani was saying you were a military hater, but even if she was mistakingly saying so, she is a person you can have a civil debate with.

[Tinoire]

51. Sorry Tom. I know Leilani is a good poster/person

but there was no need for this

Like clockwork, the military haters turn up

& piss on good work being done.

I seem to remember many arguing FOR military assistance in Haiti.

That was BS. The title. The post. And the recollection. There is little argument on this board FOR military assistance in Haiti or anywhere which was why I asked for links.

Haiti was an issue I paid particular attention to and am very, very sensitive about. The snarky Like clockwork, the military haters turn up was totally uncalled for and patience wears thin because it's not the first time. DU is not a military hating place and I very much resent the implication that anyone critical of the military is a military hater. That's a horrible term used for us elsewhere & it doesn't belong here. The posters Leilani just slammed are honorable posters too. Not calling people, honorable posters, "military haters" is where the tone needs to start getting ratchetted. There's been waaay too much of that here lately.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. The Left and America's Military is a good topic for ongoing discussion

Not from me now though. Happy New Year everybody (there is much to mourn and be sorrowful of also unfortunately this year).

[Eloriel]

59. Absolutely nothing wrong with her tone

It was, in fact, respectful given the fact that the poster was demonstrably, provably WRONG -- and had gone out of her way to be insulting ("military haters") to a broad swath of people (Duers) who don't necessarily deserve the insult.

[Leilani]

67. Thanks so very much Tom, for your gallant intervention.

I was away from DU for 2 weeks, & this was my first post since returning.

Unfortunately, my post was not the most diplomatic, however sometimes DU resembles an echo chamber.

My general frustration with the loss of the election, & further consolidation of power by the Republicans, has me seriously questioning why the country is voting the way it is. After discussing this with liberal thinking people outside of DU, I'm convinced that we have a perception problem. And I happen to think that some here, not all, are generally suspicious of the military, & a vocal minority are downright hostile.

As I posted elsewhere, I believe the military is essentially a product of the people in Washington who design their missions, be it good or evil.

[Leilani]

66. I did not connect DU & Clinton's mission to Haiti

I was commenting on the lack of consensus on American efforts in foreign countries.

I'm sorry I don't bookmark all interesting threads, & do not have links at hand.

As far as the situation in Haiti, re: Aristede, there was no one approving what went on, or the U.S.'s role in Haiti. However, Haitian people were being injured & suffering food shortages at the time. The Marine contingent that Bush sent was quite small, & was not really able to help with the humanitarian suffering. I seem to remember quite clearly people expressing feelings that more should be done to aid the Haitian people, including general discussion of the Marine involvement.

My post was not addressed to you; it was a general post to the OP.

[IStriker]

73. Try Post #58 for openers

[rman]

65. Do you trust Bush to use the military to do good in the world?

People as suspicious of Bush's motives, i think you are going way overboard by calling these people "military haters".

If you want to see hate, go talk to RW reli-fundies about liberals.

[Leilani]

68. No, I don't trust Bush about ANYTHING.

But for reasons posted by many, I believe the military, because of their unique capabilities, can help the tsunami victims in a way not available to relief organizations.

[IStriker]

71. Yes they are. Try Post # 58 who prefers the UN to US military.

[DrGonzoLives]

42. Well, OBVIOUSLY

it's a prelude to an invasion - the earthquake was caused by super-secret army bombs designed to cause underwater earthquakes and tsunamis. Soon we will move in and conquer those countries!

[KSAtheist]

49. Hey

At least with the military you'll ensure that some aid gets to the people who need it rather than rot in a warehouse.

[htuttle]

53. Is that right?

Rebuilding Aid Unspent, Tapped to Pay Expenses
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A54692-2004Apr29¬Found=true

[Disturbed]

55. CIA said that OBL was probably...

in Indonesia. Maybe getting supplies in there is one objective and another to look for OBL?

[RafterMan]

62. When did the CIA say this?

I think that would be a bad move for him if he was. The Indonesian military does not love the Islamists, and the balance of power leans to their side in that country.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Indonesia is far larger than the tsunami affected areas

I'm just sayin' ...........

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

70. I had my hat ready thinking you were talking about the CAUSE of the quake

Given the Dominionist "belief", I wouldn't put it past those powers to ACTUALLY MIHOP :< :< :<

In researching the quake/Tsunami when it happened last week, One thing that went "ping" on my radar was a page on a recently completed study that created the most complete and detailed map of along four thousand miles of the Sumatra Induction Zone.

It occured to me that if Domionist PTB types thought they _could_ do, they just might.

I've seen lots of posts from people who are not geophysicists who refuted early allegations of malfeance, saying the energy released by the earthquake is the equivalent of thousand's of nuclear bombs, which is of course true. But considering the combination of knowing the faults intimately, and all the work done on small nukes in the past few years, its not beyond the pale to think the right nuke in the right place could trigger this horror.

Now even though I've got that metal hat, I'm not saying anything!!!!

But I will leave you with something to google about how deep the neo-cons/theo-cons COULD go: "Vigilant Guardian" "September 11"

How many people have heard A PEEP that there were a number of military excercises simulating the hijacking of multiple airliners going on September 11??

When I found that out, I felt sick.

Of course, the sumatra quake _could_ have been triggered by the effects of the mind-control beams of HAARP targetting Ohio and Ukraine the past couple of months... ;) <- WINKY SMILE!

Geophysical War -- Hoo Ha -- What is it good for?! Absolutely Nothin'! -- Bruce Springsteen

All the best,

FULL_METAL_HAT

btw, the premise of the US sending in the miltary for disaster support is a long and noble tradition. It makes me sad that US Miltiary actually took so long to do anything to help!

[Clark2008]

74. Actually, this is what they need to be doing

as in what Clinton would be having them doing, instead of fighting unnecessary wars.

During peace time, Clinton used the military to help.

However, I do question why a senior commander was pulled off a war front, particularly one the United States is losing, to do this.

Of course, this IS the Shrub Administration. They don't make rational decisions.

:shrug:

[American Tragedy]

88. It sounds like a reasonable decision to me.

The military has conducted missions like this many times before, and they're very well equiped, although they probably should have been sent much earlier. The naval vessels can produce fresh water, they have food and medical supplies and staff, and they're very well prepared for search and rescues if there are any left to be done.

Moreover, this is not necessarily the safest region of the world for Americans. Sri Lanka in particular is highly unstable. However, it is also an excellent opportunity to show the brighter side of our country. Indonesia has the highest Muslim population of any nation on Earth, and we know for a fact that there is al-Qaeda presence there. I've always though that we could only begin to staunch the cycle of terrorism and retaliation by showing ourselves as constructive and benevolent.