Mercenaries and Occupation

[BreakfastOfChampions]

Wondering what you military types think of this Op-Ed piece.

Contractors away

While everyone is chattering about mercinaries in Iraq, no one is drawing the obvious conclusion, American troops are going to get killed avenging mercenaries making 10 times more than they did for the same jobs. The poor grunts who have to go to Fallujah don't have fancy employment contracts and they don't walk around in civvies with M-4's. Yet, because some hired guns got killed, they're going to have to mount up for some dick swinging revenge raid.

Of course, the Mercs got killed because US troops have piss-poor discipline and killed women and children in panic. The Iraqis are not using fine distinctions. By the logic of normal people, the dead mercs should be revenged by their bosses. Or more intelligently, pay the tribesmen to leave them alone. Instead, some kid, probably by the time the NCAA's are on, will be getting a free trip to Bethesda for his new leg. Will Blackwater USA, the "security" company who hired the dead men, pay the Marines bills? Of course not.

What the DOD is doing is conflating private enterprise to be the same as government work. The mercs have no legal standing in warfare. The Iraqis can burn them as they like, serve them on pita or cut off their heads according to the Geneva Convention. What the US is doing is saying that mercs have a legal, protected status. One American Marines, making so little that their families get Food Stamps, must kill and die to protect.

What happens when these rent-a soldiers light up a town or shoot up some Iraqis. Is the DOD going to embrace them then , or pretend these guys are just employees with no ties to the USG. Which might sound pretty lame to the families of the dead Marines send to avenge the dead mercs.

The USG in Iraq has thought so little about the role of mercs that they don't seem to have a dividing line between the role of soldiers and contractors. And neither do the Iraqis.

One other point: there is no way to tell the difference between SF/SEAL troopers and mercs. They use the same cars, weapons and gear. They all wear civilian clothes as well. The Iraqis who ambushed the two cars could have thought they were going after a Special Operations team. There is no way to tell the difference without asking.If you want to know why this hasn't been a big story so far, the media in Iraq hires the same companies. Baghdad is so dangerous that any high profile Western reporter risks their lives without hired guns by their side. The USG is not their only client, by far.

There's also a big difference in the companies employed. There are the Ghurkas who protect buildings and facilities, Iraqis who serve as armed doormen, and the elite US/UK SOF troopers who do the dirty work. Iraq has become a Disneyland for ex-soldiers.

If the US is going to claim ignorance about the numbers of mercs, how can they ask Marines to risk their lives to avenge their deaths? These guys are mercenaries, they risked their lives for money, which is part of the job. Now, Marines will be expected to get killed because of that.

Here's a brief history of Vinnell Corporation, one of America's favored merc companies. They rebuilt the Croatian Army in 1995, protect the Sauds, and are training the Iraqi Army. Unlike Blackwater, they are more a private version of a military training team (MTT) than Special Ops surrogates.

The right has long wanted an American version of the French Foriegn Legion, able to impose American imperial will without the dead bodies of American teenagers involved. The problem is that mercs are regarded as persona non grata in most of the third world, especially in Africa, where they have caused untold instability. South Africa, once a home to mercs, outlawed the business in the '90's, just as Executive Outcomes was doing a booming business guarding the Angolan oil fields.

The use of companies like Blackwater allows this shadow army to exist, created by the low wages of US military service and the constant supply of action for those who become addicted to it. Running around with cammies and weapons can turn into a drug for some. The stupid levels of money and lack of rules attract others. After all, if you're a white supremacist, you're gonna find it hard to make your 20 in the US Army. But who cares what you think when you go solo.

What this creates is a force which turns every gripe regular soldiers had about special ops troopers and creates a nightmare. Mercs serve as a release valve for folks who might work for drug dealers, the Russian mob or anyone with cash. At the same time, like the four dead mercs in Iraq, they can create a major problem which requires American teenagers to bail them out. It's nice to call them disposable soldiers, but that's not the reality. They are a policy risk, because if the US conduct in Iraq is any indication, they are US soldiers without portfolio or protection.

[Gotetsu]

First off, I didn't realize that they were Mercs. So, that part is news to me (I don't pay much attention to the news, which is probably not a good thing).

However, assuming they were, I can see arguements for both sides.

I mean, I'm not for any "revenge" thing at all. But those Iraqis need to be put down, in a manner of speaking. Because those types are going to be the ones that destablize the new regime when it finally comes to power. And besides that, they were going after what they perceived as "Americans", no matter what their legal status happened to be. As far as those people were concerned they could have been Marines in that vehicle, and they would have done the same thing.

And you also have to consider the angle of the Iraqis being "inhumane." I mean, the way they disrespected the bodies is downright detestable. I know our boys do a few bad things over there, but I have never heard of us doing anything on that scale of barbarism (correct me if I'm wrong). So, you have to wonder just what their lives are worth to the greater picture, if they show such disrespect for their fellow human beings?

(Note: Take that with a grain of salt, as I am very much in the school of thought where a person's worth is greatly influenced by their contributions to the world around them.)

I mean, hell, they had KIDS mutilating the bodies. That's just bad parenting, if you ask me.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

I don't think anyone would praise the way the bodies were handled.

I, from my armchair dictatorship, have trouble with the idea that those 'contractors' were 'our boys'.

Frankly, I think you either fight in the US armed forces, or you're just another punk with a pistol (rifle, whathaveyou).

I don't want to see American military -- some of who don't get paid enough to support their families -- are being put at risk to get revenge for a bunch of contractors who are earning a grand a day to be there.

A grand a day. Hmm think they can afford the body armor and vehicle armor our armed forces cannot?

You bet they can, and who is paying for that armor? You know, that armor the military aint got?

[Gotetsu]

Yeah, from that angle, I agree 100%.

But I still think that the Iraqis that did it are a threat that need to be removed. I just think that putting the whole "avenging" spin on it was a bad idea. If they would have just said "a threat has been located and plans to neutralize it are underway", I would have been happy.

Yeah, mercs need to work where the official military can't/won't. That's what they do.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

Sure, those insurgents who did that are definitely a threat. I think my issue comes in is that mercenaries could possibly be undermining the effectiveness of the US forces.

[Gotetsu]

Absolutely. Although their being there can have positive effects (more manpower), the negatives outweigh them. Mainly because of their nebulous relationship with the Government.

If I were a merc, I wouldn't WANT to work there right now. It's to high-profile, and newsworthy. I would rather work in a low-key environment, where my presence alone would be less of a liability.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

Unless of course you're a psycho, because while the military might have standards, mercenary companies are pretty notorious for taking *anyone*.

We used ... I think it was DynaCorp in Serbia, and some of their boys got busted for setting up Child Prostitution rings.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the US military has a few rules against that kind of thing, and might be a tad more agressive about enforcing them than DynaCorp.

[Gotetsu]

Yeah, they seemed to frown upon that sort of thing when I was in. I can't imagine the military has changed THAT much in 9 years. :shock:

[BreakfastOfChampions]

I don't think so. So on one hand I see these guys who got into the military, for a variety of reasons mind you, but certainly *not* for the pay, working along side complete and utter yahoos who are getting paid a fortune, and making their job harder.

Mercenaries also don't have to follow the Geneva convention, if I recall right, which can be good *and* bad, since the "bad guys" sure aren't following the Geneva Convention, and the military at least gives it *some* lip service.

[Shin Kenshiro]

I don't think so. So on one hand I see these guys who got into the military, for a variety of reasons mind you, but certainly *not* for the pay, working along side complete and utter yahoos who are getting paid a fortune, and making their job harder.

Mercenaries also don't have to follow the Geneva convention, if I recall right, which can be good *and* bad, since the "bad guys" sure aren't following the Geneva Convention, and the military at least gives it *some* lip service.

Believe me....we give it ALOT more than lip service. We're almost always getting forced into doing near-suicidal things because of that damned treaty. Does it make war more civil? Yes, if both people play by the rules. Problem is, only the "good" guys use the damned thing. Every other un-allied country laughs at it, whizzes on it, then wipes their butts with it (if they use paper instead of their hands). I am tired of having to play by the rules in something that is far from a game. Lives are on the line, and the winner is the one who does the most damage. Nuclear, Biological, and chemical threats, yes....I can see a "don't use this stuff" policy. But there are times where the line MUST be drawn. General Sherman said it best I think in 2 simple quotes:

It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.
- General William Tecumseh Sherman

I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy. (I believe we should have done this in many of our wars....ever since WWII)
- William Tecumseh Sherman

[smartmonkey]

....we give it ALOT more than lip service. We're almost always getting forced into doing near-suicidal things because of that damned treaty.

Like locking up foreign citizens on a certain carribean island with no chance of a fair trial because they happened to have been on the wrong side?

The US violates the GC on a regular basis, at least since we began the war on terror.

Honestly, I much prefer the convention to stay in place. Even if not all of our opponents subscribe to it. Among other things, it puts us on a higher level of morality - don't forget that the GC is why we don't see things like torture or executions on the battlefield - or at least why we aren't show them.

Look at the massacres that occured in Vietnam (the famous still of the south vietnamese officer executing a bound suspected viet cong springs to mind, among others), and I don't think any of us wants to see the mass destruction that accompanies that sort of total warfare. Besides, it means we have less infrastructure to rebuild after we do the imperialist pig thing.

So yeah. Thats pretty disconnected and incoherent, but I'm frickin' tired.

And mercenaries: They make for great action movies, RPG's, and video games, but they're an anachronism on the modern battlefield.

[Gotetsu]

it puts us on a higher level of morality

Yeah, that and a bullet proof vest might save your life when someone is shooting at you.

So yeah. Thats pretty disconnected and incoherent, but I'm frickin' tired.

No shit. :roll:

[Count Zero]

Believe me....we give it ALOT more than lip service. We're almost always getting forced into doing near-suicidal things because of that damned treaty. Does it make war more civil? Yes, if both people play by the rules. Problem is, only the "good" guys use the damned thing.

The Geneva Convention is a concept born out of being a modern civilization. It is a set of beliefs. It is about morality. We have recognized that war is evil, at times a necessary evil, but still evil. While we may have to fight wars, we don't have to give up what makes us civilized.

When you fight monsters you must be careful that you do not become a monster yourself. The Geneva Convention is civilization.... it is what sets us apart from the barbarians and the monsters. It makes us better.

BTW... the first quote seems to support the Geneva Convention.

Jonathan

[Count Zero]

[quote:44420689cd="smartmonkey"]it puts us on a higher level of morality

Yeah, that and a bullet proof vest might save your life when someone is shooting at you.
[/quote:44420689cd]

Eh? How is this connected to the aspect of the morality the Geneva Convention creates? I am lost.....

Jonathan

[Skyman]

[quote:81029aab1a="Gotetsu"][quote:81029aab1a="smartmonkey"]it puts us on a higher level of morality

Yeah, that and a bullet proof vest might save your life when someone is shooting at you.
[/quote:81029aab1a]

Eh? How is this connected to the aspect of the morality the Geneva Convention creates? I am lost.....

Jonathan[/quote:81029aab1a]

Makes sense to me...but then I had to read it twice

[Gotetsu]

I meant that in a firefight, morality doesn't play any part.

It was a new spin on the old phrase "That and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee." Meaning that it is worthless in the context of a firefight.

[smartmonkey]

I meant that in a firefight, morality doesn't play any part.

No shit! I thought my superior sense of ethics would deflect bullets! Besides, my swollen ego gives me bonus hit points...

A higher sense of morality does have an effect on the civillian population and world opinion at large - in theory. Thats what I'm referring to...

[Gotetsu]

Yes, our higher sense of ethics and morality makes us beloved by everyone. :roll:

In theory, sure, it makes a difference. In reality, it doesn't. Most countries have their opinions of the USA, and those opinions are never changed no matter how much good or bad we do.

Case in point, Iraq. We toppled a dictator, a ruthless oxygen-thief who deserved so much more than we did to him. Does it help our image? Not in the least. We still have people whining because we "have no right" to be there. Even though we, as a nation have a vested interest in the region, and our survival as a nation depends, to a certain extent, on the climate of the politics in the area. Sure, you can cry "imperialism" all you want. But the fact is, whether you see it as "big business" or something else, the oil in the middle-east is important to America, not just oil companies. They just happen to be the ones who get the monetary profit. In the end, ALL Americans benefit (well, except the Amish, since they don't drive cars).

[BreakfastOfChampions]

Yes, our higher sense of ethics and morality makes us beloved by everyone. :roll:

In theory, sure, it makes a difference. In reality, it doesn't. Most countries have their opinions of the USA, and those opinions are never changed no matter how much good or bad we do.

Case in point, Iraq. We toppled a dictator, a ruthless oxygen-thief who deserved so much more than we did to him. Does it help our image? Not in the least. We still have people whining because we "have no right" to be there. Even though we, as a nation have a vested interest in the region, and our survival as a nation depends, to a certain extent, on the climate of the politics in the area. Sure, you can cry "imperialism" all you want. But the fact is, whether you see it as "big business" or something else, the oil in the middle-east is important to America, not just oil companies. They just happen to be the ones who get the monetary profit. In the end, ALL Americans benefit (well, except the Amish, since they don't drive cars).

Thanks for making that clear. I think a lot of people miss the importance of oil in the American Way, and don't understand the massive shock to our way of life they have over there, holding on to that oil.

So sure, oil is extremely important to the US. The question to me is how far should the US go to get that oil?

Is it important enough for us to go all the way?

[Skyman]

What happen to mercenaries topic?

[BreakfastOfChampions]

What happen to mercenaries topic?

Technically, the gentlement involved didn't fulfill all the qualifications of being mercenaries. They were instead 'illegal combatants'.

The effectiveness of those mercenaries might be questionable, guess it depends how today pans out.

[smartmonkey]

In theory, sure, it makes a difference. In reality, it doesn't. Most countries have their opinions of the USA, and those opinions are never changed no matter how much good or bad we do.

Are you saying that we should just toss all that out the window, then? Yeah, so, not eveyone holds us in high regard because we're party to the GC, but I think dropping out of it, or worse, blatantly ignoring its precepts (camp x-ray anyone?) is ten times worse for americas image and reputation.

So sure, oil is extremely important to the US. The question to me is how far should the US go to get that oil?

Is it important enough for us to go all the way?

Important enough to send guys that aren't even old enough to buy their own beer out to die for it...

What happen to mercenaries topic?



Unknown.

[Gotetsu]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is the end-all-be-all reason for war. It's just a factor that is often overlooked, and/or belittled in the face of "morality" issues. On the issues of morailty, we also have allies over there who depend on our benevolence to keep them safe (so to speak, as they are fickle in their support).

It's a very complex issue, with more facets than a 30-sided die (which you left two of at my place last week, Skyman). My only point is that just because a reason leaves a sour taste in your mouth, doens't mean it's an invalid reason.

And about the original topic...I dunno. This IS rpg-sandiego.org, after all. :)

[BreakfastOfChampions]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is the end-all-be-all reason for war. It's just a factor that is often overlooked, and/or belittled in the face of "morality" issues. On the issues of morailty, we also have allies over there who depend on our benevolence to keep them safe (so to speak, as they are fickle in their support).

It's a very complex issue, with more facets than a 30-sided die (which you left two of at my place last week, Skyman). My only point is that just because a reason leaves a sour taste in your mouth, doens't mean it's an invalid reason.

And about the original topic...I dunno. This IS rpg-sandiego.org, after all. :)

National Security is always a trickly topic. Saying its about oil is unfair, but denying there are people who want/need oil and want to preserve our way of life is unrealistic.

Unfortunately, we haven't been very good about our rebuilding. If we were able to provide more security in the region, I would be much more into the idea we've 'improved the lives of Iraqis' argument.

As it is, rape and kidnapping are booming business. Actually, kidnapping is the booming business. Rape is just a 'perk'. I would feel much better as a 'liberator' if we had not given the ultimate in freedom: anarchy.

Perhaps that's why we hire mercenaries, or 'illegal combatants'. However, it now seems that the Army is going in to 'retake' Fallula (sp), which is where those 'contractors' got killed.

[Gotetsu]

National Security is always a trickly topic. Saying its about oil is unfair, but denying there are people who want/need oil and want to preserve our way of life is unrealistic.

Unfortunately, we haven't been very good about our rebuilding. If we were able to provide more security in the region, I would be much more into the idea we've 'improved the lives of Iraqis' argument.

Exactly. But in order to restore security in Iraq, those hardliners who still support the old regime blindly need to be dealt with. And unfortunately, it won't be "civilized," because death is about the only way they will stop.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote:49b1e27b74="BreakfastOfChampions"]National Security is always a trickly topic. Saying its about oil is unfair, but denying there are people who want/need oil and want to preserve our way of life is unrealistic.

Unfortunately, we haven't been very good about our rebuilding. If we were able to provide more security in the region, I would be much more into the idea we've 'improved the lives of Iraqis' argument.

Exactly. But in order to restore security in Iraq, those hardliners who still support the old regime blindly need to be dealt with. And unfortunately, it won't be "civilized," because death is about the only way they will stop.[/quote:49b1e27b74]

The currrent problem is *not* the old hardliners though. Unfortunately that seems to be a fantasy the current administration is living under. Only the Sunni really cared about him, and not even most of them. Now we have the Shia in uprising, and the Shia had no love whatsoever for Saddam.

And the behavior of mercenaries hired through Backwater...well, they aren't helping win us friends, exactly.

[Skyman]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is the end-all-be-all reason for war. It's just a factor that is often overlooked, and/or belittled in the face of "morality" issues. On the issues of morailty, we also have allies over there who depend on our benevolence to keep them safe (so to speak, as they are fickle in their support).

It's a very complex issue, with more facets than a 30-sided die (which you left two of at my place last week, Skyman). My only point is that just because a reason leaves a sour taste in your mouth, doens't mean it's an invalid reason.

And about the original topic...I dunno. This IS rpg-sandiego.org, after all. :)

My GLORIOUS 30 sided dice! :oops:

[Gotetsu]

The currrent problem is *not* the old hardliners though. Unfortunately that seems to be a fantasy the current administration is living under. Only the Sunni really cared about him, and not even most of them. Now we have the Shia in uprising, and the Shia had no love whatsoever for Saddam.

Ok, another tidbit to add to my slowly increasing knowledge base on the issue (I really need to pay more attention if I'm going to take part in these discussions). :)

So, why are the Shia uprising?

[BreakfastOfChampions]

[quote:325fc09fb7="BreakfastOfChampions"]The currrent problem is *not* the old hardliners though. Unfortunately that seems to be a fantasy the current administration is living under. Only the Sunni really cared about him, and not even most of them. Now we have the Shia in uprising, and the Shia had no love whatsoever for Saddam.

Ok, another tidbit to add to my slowly increasing knowledge base on the issue (I really need to pay more attention if I'm going to take part in these discussions). :)

So, why are the Shia uprising?[/quote:325fc09fb7]

The Shia are broken up into elements. There are two particularly strong factions now. Sistani is one guy, and Sadr is the other.

Mind you, Saddam totally screwed the Shia. Its said he was in charge of murdering about 300,000 of them when they rose up against him. Sadr lost both his father and his brother to Saddam's 'solution' Both Sadr and Sistani are very influential muslim clerics. There's even a section of Bagdhad called Sadr City. Close to a million Shia live in that section of Bagdhad.

The Shia have been waiting. They have 1) Been helping keep the action cool in the South (mostly run by brits) because their militias have been much needed boots on the ground. Why are the Shia waiting? Because they can. The Shia make up 60% of the country, so if Iraq went democratic, they'll get a good piece of the pie.

Well, that's only the if Shia believe they're going to be part of the process, and that this democracy thing isn't just a dog and pony show. The last thing the US wants is a Iran like state with a puppet democracy and a powerful Muslim clergy behind the scenes. Little by little, events have been leading Sadr to think that the Shia are going to be cut out of the process, and that democracy won't come.

To add to the mess there's hundreds of newspapers in Iraq. Sadr's organization has one and it calls for violence against foreign troops. No violence has been directly linked, but the CPA shut down the paper and took the guy in charge of it, one of Sadr's advisors, into custody.

Then things became not so good. People protested, and spanish troops opened fire. They say they were shot at. No one knows. In the long and short of it, there was a running gun battle in Sadr city which got 7 American and 1 soldier from Ecuador killed. Something like 24 Iraqi civilians died. Sadr is telling his followers to rise up, since protesting doesn't seem to be working.

Sistani, the other powerful leader, is calling for everyone to chill, but is squarely blaming the coalition for the bloodshed. Sadr is in a mosque reflecting on events. Bremer wants him arrested.

I hate to sound callous, but if it turns into a 2 front war, I say put the mercenaries on the front line and tell them to earn their grand a day.

[Count Zero]

I meant that in a firefight, morality doesn't play any part.

It was a new spin on the old phrase "That and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee." Meaning that it is worthless in the context of a firefight.

Ah... I see... You do have a point there, but that arguement breaks down when you have civilians caught in the middle of the fire fight. That is what is often happening in Iraq. The statement of "what were they doing there" doesn't really cut it, because the fights are taking place where these people live.

[Count Zero]

In theory, sure, it makes a difference. In reality, it doesn't. Most countries have their opinions of the USA, and those opinions are never changed no matter how much good or bad we do.

Are you saying that we should just toss all that out the window, then? Yeah, so, not eveyone holds us in high regard because we're party to the GC, but I think dropping out of it, or worse, blatantly ignoring its precepts (camp x-ray anyone?) is ten times worse for americas image and reputation.



The problem is we are already kind of ignoring it here and there. Additionally it isn't like we are doing it secretly... we are stating we are. That has really hurt our image.. thankfully the adminstration finally started to pay attention a little bit, but it is most likely too late.

Remember, most people in the world don't hate Americans.. they hate our government's policies. They see the policies are reckless and self-centered with no concern for greater whole. Of course being self-centered is what we are good at so it should come as no suprise to the world.

Jonathan

[Count Zero]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is the end-all-be-all reason for war. It's just a factor that is often overlooked, and/or belittled in the face of "morality" issues. On the issues of morailty, we also have allies over there who depend on our benevolence to keep them safe (so to speak, as they are fickle in their support).


We are as responsible for that situation as they are... you have to have two to tango.

[Shin Kenshiro]

As much as I would love to have an opinion on the matter that would reflect an in depth and comprehensive idea about a peaceful solution, I can't seem to dig one up. All of you have presented very interesting cases. That being said, it's Shiite, not Shia.

Yes, the Shiites are believing heavily that they are going to be cut out of the process (and seeing as how much I was lied to, and the way things are going now...it wouldn't surprise me if they were), and so now they are hitting the streets in standard zealot fashion. IE...kill the invading infidel. The people over there don't exactly live the most inspiring lives, and are influenced so heavily by their religion that many of them (see young men) quickly fall under the influence of a silver tongued cleric. Although, everytime I see them described as clerics, I get visions of mace wielding arabs riding through fields of undead while howling battle cries.

Another problem is this Sadr guy. It's not that he's just calling for violence against the coalition, but many of his followers want to put him in the main position of power and NOT have a democracy. In essence, put a new Saddam in place (Sadr ain't no saint), but this time....he'll be Shiite Muslim instead of Sunni Muslim.

What can we do about this? 3 steps I see that would really help, but will never occur.
1) Pull out all mercenaries or "security professionals" in the area. If you aren't active military, your ass doesn't belong there.
2) Deny Halliburton the main contracts to so much of Iraq's rebuilding. Everyone with half a brain can see that the only reason they got the contract was because it's Dick Cheney's company. (Yes, I know it's not "his", but he has more than a vested interest in it)
3) On June 30, hand the government over to the Iraqis as promised. Whether they go religious or democratic, it's their country, let them do it. We can only protect our own interests. No one can see the future, no matter how many degrees they have or news stories they've read. We have to let these people do it their way. The Middle East is infinitely different from the Western World.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

I've heard both Shia and Shiite. Also Shi'ite. In any event, I originally typed 'powerful clerics' to which a voice in my head added "at least 9th level!"

hoo boy.

I think you already know that I believe the problem isn't this Sadr guy, but instead the fact we went on this fool's errand in the first place, and then proceeded to fuck up the reconstruction *possibly* worse than the civil war.

I agree with your assessment. Mercenaries out. I think we should also borrow more from the brit model, which seems to be a lot more peaceful, though I'm not sure if that's because of their tactics, or because they are mostly in Shi'ite controlled areas. Remember Basra? At the time of this writing, the Brits seemed to have left it.
source (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/iraq_us_british_shiites)

[Count Zero]

Yes, the Shiites are believing heavily that they are going to be cut out of the process (and seeing as how much I was lied to, and the way things are going now...it wouldn't surprise me if they were), and so now they are hitting the streets in standard zealot fashion. IE...kill the invading infidel. The people over there don't exactly live the most inspiring lives, and are influenced so heavily by their religion that many of them (see young men) quickly fall under the influence of a silver tongued cleric. Although, everytime I see them described as clerics, I get visions of mace wielding arabs riding through fields of undead while howling battle cries.

If you believed that you were about to be cut out of a political process and denied a voice in your government wouldn't you seriously consider rising up and killing the "infidel", whoever they might be? I would seriously consider it. I don't think this has as much to do with religion as it does with enfranchisment. Religion has an influence it this but I doubt that is the main problem. The clerics are community leaders mainly because there has be no one to fill the role for so long. It is partially our fault for not having a better plan.

As to religious extremism.. we have plenty of that in this country too. The Christian extremists have bombed buildings and murdered people who were "unholy and evil". If pushed enough they would be doing the same as the people above. If given true control of our society we would all be praising Jesus each day and those that didn't would be second class citizens. The danger of religion is believing you have the exclusive, one, true Word.

Jonathan

[Shin Kenshiro]

[quote:91da3f2aab="Shin Kenshiro"]
Yes, the Shiites are believing heavily that they are going to be cut out of the process (and seeing as how much I was lied to, and the way things are going now...it wouldn't surprise me if they were), and so now they are hitting the streets in standard zealot fashion. IE...kill the invading infidel. The people over there don't exactly live the most inspiring lives, and are influenced so heavily by their religion that many of them (see young men) quickly fall under the influence of a silver tongued cleric. Although, everytime I see them described as clerics, I get visions of mace wielding arabs riding through fields of undead while howling battle cries.

If you believed that you were about to be cut out of a political process and denied a voice in your government wouldn't you seriously consider rising up and killing the "infidel", whoever they might be? I would seriously consider it. I don't think this has as much to do with religion as it does with enfranchisment. Religion has an influence it this but I doubt that is the main problem. The clerics are community leaders mainly because there has be no one to fill the role for so long. It is partially our fault for not having a better plan.

As to religious extremism.. we have plenty of that in this country too. The Christian extremists have bombed buildings and murdered people who were "unholy and evil". If pushed enough they would be doing the same as the people above. If given true control of our society we would all be praising Jesus each day and those that didn't would be second class citizens. The danger of religion is believing you have the exclusive, one, true Word.

Jonathan[/quote:91da3f2aab]

I never said we didn't. But when was the last time you saw a whole city in America run out into the streets and shoot guns in the air to show their support of a local Jew-hating minister? Yes, we have our own nutballs...but nowhere near the percentage because calmer heads prevail and WE DO NOT TOLERATE IT! This is a country founded on many freedoms, but a distinct separation of church and state. Our equivalent to their situation (in terms of one group being cut out from the ability to play in government) would be the Republicans taking over government and not letting registered Democrats vote.

People have long put to much thought and care into religion anyway. This is like watching Catholics and Protestants go at it in the name of God. You'd think by this time in our evolutionary cycle we'd have realized God hasn't really cared much about who praises him loudest.

[BreakfastOfChampions]

I never said we didn't. But when was the last time you saw a whole city in America run out into the streets and shoot guns in the air to show their support of a local Jew-hating minister?


It sounds like you think that this entire thing is about anti-semitism. Do you think this is all because they hate the Jews?


Yes, we have our own nutballs...but nowhere near the percentage because calmer heads prevail and WE DO NOT TOLERATE IT!


I believe its because we have a different set of controls in place. We also have a pretty powerful police force, for which I'm greatful, but also consider we have a rather large % of our population incarcerated. I don't want to drift off into a prison discussion, but what I'd like to point out the two political systems are so different its hard to point to one reason why we don't do what they do.


This is a country founded on many freedoms, but a distinct separation of church and state.


Agreed. We do have many freedoms, but we are a bounded box. My major quibble here is with the separation of church and state. Examine some of the current faith-based initiatives on the table, and you may realise that the church has snuck in a bit more than you think. Churches -- santioned ones anyway -- are tax free organizations. Consider also the majority of scandals surrounding the catholic church as of late. If that organization were another group, there would be nowhere near as much wrangling, and more direction action against that group.

So while I agree we *value* the separation of church and state, I think its something Americans have taken for granted, and in doing so, do not have as much of as they think.


Our equivalent to their situation (in terms of one group being cut out from the ability to play in government) would be the Republicans taking over government and not letting registered Democrats vote.


You mean like the Florida voting systems which blocked convicted felons from voting? I'm not against that, but the matching algorithms were on the loose side. This meant that innocent people who happened to have very close names were denied a vote. Proving this is partisan politics is a tricky part.

Now for something more direct, lets examine redistricting, which was done in Texas. While it doesn't limit the voting population, it *does* limit the legislative power that your representative has, if you're in a demographically "democrat" area. This was attempted by the Democrats first, back when they had the majority, so no party is innocent, but because we have a complex system in place, its how we can removie political power from people while keeping an illusion of freedom.


People have long put to much thought and care into religion anyway.


I disagree. Well, about the thought part at least. The care, well, that's an idea straight out of Kabbalism -- the problem with the world is not that there is too little love, or care -- its that there is too much, and our passions drive us to do horrible things. The love and care came out of the Demiurge into Kether, which flowed into Chokma and Binah -- and those vessels, being impure, broke. The flow cascaded down, and the entire Tree of life was broken.

A very beautiful way to illustrate there is too much care in the world.


This is like watching Catholics and Protestants go at it in the name of God.


Oh, like the Orange and Green Protestants? If you go further back, you get the crusades. GWB made the unfortuante mistake of calling our current conflict a crusade. This brought home all the religious underpinnings that seem to lurk beneath the surface of this conflict.


You'd think by this time in our evolutionary cycle we'd have realized God hasn't really cared much about who praises him loudest.

W0rd. I'd be more into that if I really thought there was a God, but I can't be certain, and am not sure it would make that big of a difference if there was.

[Count Zero]

I never said we didn't. But when was the last time you saw a whole city in America run out into the streets and shoot guns in the air to show their support of a local Jew-hating minister?


Notice though as we have moved closer and closer the separating the Chruch and State (not county the Faith Based Initiatives program) the fundementalists start screaming louder and louder.

The key is they aren't fully disenfranchised yet. Our system works a bit different so it has slowed the process. Unless there is a major shift in their belief structure in the near future, I could see this exploding into something larger... it may take 10-15 years but it will most likely happen. Remember these people believe this country is literally God's Nation. Remember the America Bless God stickers and billboards... that is an aspect of that.


Yes, we have our own nutballs...but nowhere near the percentage because calmer heads prevail and WE DO NOT TOLERATE IT!

Like I said above.... get enough people in power who think like they do and it would be praising Jesus time....

People have long put to much thought and care into religion anyway. This is like watching Catholics and Protestants go at it in the name of God. You'd think by this time in our evolutionary cycle we'd have realized God hasn't really cared much about who praises him loudest.

Actually, if you look at many of the discussions that are going on in Christianity, at least it is become a very open faith (at least in the Episcopal Church), there is the big push for the concept that any faith that states it is good to be loving and kind is of god. Add the fact God is not the Magic Dude in the sky, as you put it so well, and Jesus is just a guy who had great ideas and you are getting a rather noble belief system.

Also keep in mind that Islam was the first religion to not only give a structure of beliefs for people to follow, but also a structure for running a government. That is the key thing about Islam... it was a complete societal system, Government and Religion combined. They aren't trying to rule with Islam because the believe that everyone should be Islamic, they want an Islamic government because Islam has governmental structure in it. Also, keep in mind that Islam has rules for other religions to pratice under Islamic rule and is the first religion to ever acknowledge women as human beings not property.

Jonathan

[Shin Kenshiro]

The only reason I wrote about the "Jew hating minister" was just to create a scenario of one religion hating the other. I didn't feel like writing "the Islamic hating minister". To many letters. 8)

Interesting points all. I appreciate the info. I just wish there was more to religion that just the old "Sometimes you just have to believe" concept. I'm a pretty jaded individual and a full time cynic....so I wish we could find out some real historical data on the men Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed. I noticed that for every historical special on TV about a major religious prophet....there are 10 on Jesus. I know I know, this is a predominantely Christian society. You'd just think that by know we'd actually know something about him. Though, he does sound like he'd have been a cool guy to hang out with. Turns water to wine, heals via just touching your wound (Great for games of football when you get shredded on hidden rocks), and one of his best friends was hooker. I mean damn, the guy tolerated everyone.

[cczernia]

I'm a pretty jaded individual and a full time cynic....so I wish we could find out some real historical data on the men Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed.

I do beleive there is actual historical evidence outside of Christian belief that Jesus existed. There is his death sentence that Pilot did have him killed. Oh, and they believe Jesus was born in 4 BCE. So, that's gotta come from somewhere other than a gospel.

I keep looking for the historical evidence that Jesus pulled a thorn from the brontasaurus' paw. I know it is there, probably buried with the true Golden Book of Morman.... ok, I'll stop now.. 8)

[Count Zero]

The only reason I wrote about the "Jew hating minister" was just to create a scenario of one religion hating the other. I didn't feel like writing "the Islamic hating minister". To many letters. 8)


I figured as much... also it is more traditional for the fundimentalist to hate the jews more than muslims... until recently that is. :P


Interesting points all. I appreciate the info. I just wish there was more to religion that just the old "Sometimes you just have to believe" concept. I'm a pretty jaded individual and a full time cynic....so I wish we could find out some real historical data on the men Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed. I noticed that for every historical special on TV about a major religious prophet....there are 10 on Jesus. I know I know, this is a predominantely Christian society. You'd just think that by know we'd actually know something about him. Though, he does sound like he'd have been a cool guy to hang out with. Turns water to wine, heals via just touching your wound (Great for games of football when you get shredded on hidden rocks), and one of his best friends was hooker. I mean damn, the guy tolerated everyone.

Actually there is quite a bit of historical stuff. The key to understanding Jesus a bit, is to remember that the miracles (i.e. raising the dead, water to wine, etc) are all imagery meant to talk to the Jewish readers of the time. Almost all of the miracles come in threes and Jesus represents the sacrificial lamb. Additionally, the miracles match up with the Jewish latergical year. If you are going to read the Christian bible you have to read it from the perspective of a Jew 2000 years ago... that gets kind of tough. So simply put... the miracles and the resurrection are myths which allow us to understand how special Jesus was and how important his message was. The books were written for time they were effecting. The other key concept is to accept that the Bible is not literal truth and it was written by men inspired by the kindness of this man that was Jesus. The final and most important aspect is that Jesus is just a man and not the incarnation of God.

The common concept of God is the magic dude in the sky and talking with my Jewish friends, they state that would be considered blasphemy to personify God in such a way. Because in the Jewish faith, anything that takes away from the glory of God (i.e. Jesus is the incarnation of god, etc.) is evil.

Not a great summary.... but a basic summary.

Jonathan

P.S. Of course I kinda like the Jesus from the Big Lebowski (sp?)

[Shin Kenshiro]

P.S. Of course I kinda like the Jesus from the Big Lebowski (sp?)

"And you....you try and crazy shit like pulling a gun out on the lane...I'll take it from you, shove it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger till it goes click!"

"Jesus...."

"You said it man...nobody fucks with the Jesus"

[cczernia]

"You said it man...nobody fucks with the Jesus"

Eight year-olds, Dude.