Full Version: American Incompetence
In reference to the recent bombing of the UN compound I saw this cartoon...
Steve Bell on the attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad
I've read similar sentiment on this site.
Is the US partially to blame (in any reasonable sense) for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad? Are US tactics largely to blame for the disparity in the number of attacks of US troops versus other coalition members?
If you don't think so, why do you believe so many are ready to accept this view?
Steve Bell on the attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad
I've read similar sentiment on this site.
Is the US partially to blame (in any reasonable sense) for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad? Are US tactics largely to blame for the disparity in the number of attacks of US troops versus other coalition members?
If you don't think so, why do you believe so many are ready to accept this view?
Well, the title of the thread is America incompetence, and I don't think that is part of the equation. Lack of focus is the problem IMO
Whenever the military or whatever has good focus with clear goals, we can't be beat. It is the lack of focus on our mission there that is making us appear "incompetent" IMO. Of course we are going to be a target from now on. We are the worlds bully, the worlds policeman now, and have made our first foray into an unprovoked war. Remember, this is the first time in our history we attacked a country that has not directly attacked us in some way. We went from being the hated because we are so succesful to the hated because we are throwing our weight around and being the biggest guy on the block. I think the second is far more dangerous an image.
Whenever the military or whatever has good focus with clear goals, we can't be beat. It is the lack of focus on our mission there that is making us appear "incompetent" IMO. Of course we are going to be a target from now on. We are the worlds bully, the worlds policeman now, and have made our first foray into an unprovoked war. Remember, this is the first time in our history we attacked a country that has not directly attacked us in some way. We went from being the hated because we are so succesful to the hated because we are throwing our weight around and being the biggest guy on the block. I think the second is far more dangerous an image.
We are now into guerilla warfare in Iraq. This is not strategic warfare. Terrorist/guerrilla type bombers are more 'advantage' attackers, so while our soldiers go in one direction from a threat, to hunt down or defend one thing we are spread thin in other areas and the bombers can quickly take advantage of those weaknesses.
Whether we are at fault or not would go all the way back to the sloppy planning and overzealous ideals from BEFORE we ever went in.
Whether we are at fault or not would go all the way back to the sloppy planning and overzealous ideals from BEFORE we ever went in.
turnea
NO It is not.
America declared responsibility to police Iraq, make it safe and rebuild Iraq after the Invasion.
No help was required from the UN, 'Old Europe' with their French fries, white flags and Germans retreating under beds and none forthcame other than advice.
It was the UN responsibility to CHOOSE to be there, not America's.
ipso facto.............there can be no blame attached to America for the bombing of the UN headquarters.
The blame lies with America creating the situation in the first instance.
Regards.......Al
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 25 2003, 09:42 PM)
Is the US partially to blame (in any reasonable sense) for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad?
NO It is not.
America declared responsibility to police Iraq, make it safe and rebuild Iraq after the Invasion.
No help was required from the UN, 'Old Europe' with their French fries, white flags and Germans retreating under beds and none forthcame other than advice.
It was the UN responsibility to CHOOSE to be there, not America's.
ipso facto.............there can be no blame attached to America for the bombing of the UN headquarters.
The blame lies with America creating the situation in the first instance.
Regards.......Al
The truth be told, I don't think it was a priority to American forces to protect the UN because the UN put Bush's nose out of joint when it didn't go along with the pre-emptive war on Iraq.
Why would someone do that to the United Nations? Probably because the people involved don't want any foreign intervention that isn't from Arab countries. Suicide bombers by definition have to be desperate, and so probably are unbalanced, too, and that might have been enough of a motive to do it.
Why would someone do that to the United Nations? Probably because the people involved don't want any foreign intervention that isn't from Arab countries. Suicide bombers by definition have to be desperate, and so probably are unbalanced, too, and that might have been enough of a motive to do it.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 26 2003, 01:07 AM)
We are the worlds bully, the worlds policeman now, and have made our first foray into an unprovoked war. Remember, this is the first time in our history we attacked a country that has not directly attacked us in some way. We went from being the hated because we are so succesful to the hated because we are throwing our weight around and being the biggest guy on the block. I think the second is far more dangerous an image.
I would suggest you visit these threads, I think they will all be informative...
If Clinton was justified, why wasn't Bush?
Regime Change
Does the United States enter wars unprovoked?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Aug 26 2003, 02:38 AM)
The truth be told, I don't think it was a priority to American forces to protect the UN because the UN put Bush's nose out of joint when it didn't go along with the pre-emptive war on Iraq
I would say that lack of priority had a different origin than the coalition...
QUOTE
U.N. officials in Iraq deliberately decided to forgo strict security measures because the United Nations "did not want a large American presence outside," U.N. spokesman Salim Lone said.
U.S. Officials: U.N. Refused Iraq Offer
Which makes this even more ridiculous than it already was...
QUOTE(United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan)
"I don't know if the UN did turn down an offer for protection, but if it did, it was not correct and it shouldn't have been allowed to turn it down," Mr Annan said.
"That kind of decision should not be left to the protected. It is those with responsibility for security and law and order, who have intelligence, which determines what action is taken."
"That kind of decision should not be left to the protected. It is those with responsibility for security and law and order, who have intelligence, which determines what action is taken."
UN concerns over Baghdad security
Surely you will agree, that is one heck of a ridiculous statement...
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 26 2003, 06:07 AM)
Well, the title of the thread is America incompetence, and I don't think that is part of the equation. Lack of focus is the problem IMO
Whenever the military or whatever has good focus with clear goals, we can't be beat. It is the lack of focus on our mission there that is making us appear "incompetent" IMO. Of course we are going to be a target from now on. We are the worlds bully, the worlds policeman now, and have made our first foray into an unprovoked war. Remember, this is the first time in our history we attacked a country that has not directly attacked us in some way. We went from being the hated because we are so succesful to the hated because we are throwing our weight around and being the biggest guy on the block. I think the second is far more dangerous an image.
Whenever the military or whatever has good focus with clear goals, we can't be beat. It is the lack of focus on our mission there that is making us appear "incompetent" IMO. Of course we are going to be a target from now on. We are the worlds bully, the worlds policeman now, and have made our first foray into an unprovoked war. Remember, this is the first time in our history we attacked a country that has not directly attacked us in some way. We went from being the hated because we are so succesful to the hated because we are throwing our weight around and being the biggest guy on the block. I think the second is far more dangerous an image.
It's not so much incompetence as much as it is lack of preparation, in my opinion. It seems that this whole "endeavor" has an obvious goal with no consideration towards possible retaliation, which seems to have just occurred, and not for the first time. To seek a new UN Resolution would be interesting to say the least, considering they didn't back the war effort to begin with. I guess we'll see what will happen, but this whole thing seems poorly planned and because of that, none of these retaliatory attacks have been expected...
QUOTE(raybb @ Aug 26 2003, 10:35 AM)
I guess we'll see what will happen, but this whole thing seems poorly planned and because of that, none of these retaliatory attacks have been expected...
How would we know that these attacks were not expected to some extent? It would not make it possible to stop them if they were...
Well, Well... seems there is accountability left in the international community after all.
Blast inquiry attacks UN security
Seems the UN staff union got the answers for us... (Thanks to them for asking)
So...
do I even have to say anything else...
QUOTE
An inquiry into the massive car bomb attack on UN headquarters in Iraq this summer has described security measures as "sloppy" and "dysfunctional".
A report by an independent panel says security regulations and advice were ignored even by the secretary general.
It says the UN had refused protection because it was uncomfortable with American tanks and other measures.
Twenty-two people died in the attack, including UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, and more than 150 were injured. ...
"In the end, I think everyone bears responsibility - the member states who are asking the UN to carry out those responsibilities and, of course... the buck stops always with the secretary general," said former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, who chaired the inquiry.
"We need to tighten the ship dramatically," he added.
The inquiry said the UN in Baghdad had asked the US military to withdraw heavy equipment and other protective measures from around the compound in the Canal Hotel because it wanted to divorce itself from the occupation. ..
A report by an independent panel says security regulations and advice were ignored even by the secretary general.
It says the UN had refused protection because it was uncomfortable with American tanks and other measures.
Twenty-two people died in the attack, including UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, and more than 150 were injured. ...
"In the end, I think everyone bears responsibility - the member states who are asking the UN to carry out those responsibilities and, of course... the buck stops always with the secretary general," said former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, who chaired the inquiry.
"We need to tighten the ship dramatically," he added.
The inquiry said the UN in Baghdad had asked the US military to withdraw heavy equipment and other protective measures from around the compound in the Canal Hotel because it wanted to divorce itself from the occupation. ..
Blast inquiry attacks UN security
Seems the UN staff union got the answers for us... (Thanks to them for asking)
So...
QUOTE(Kofi Annan)
"I don't know if the UN did turn down an offer for protection, but if it did, it was not correct and it shouldn't have been allowed to turn it down," Mr Annan said.
"That kind of decision should not be left to the protected. It is those with responsibility for security and law and order, who have intelligence, which determines what action is taken."
"That kind of decision should not be left to the protected. It is those with responsibility for security and law and order, who have intelligence, which determines what action is taken."
do I even have to say anything else...
Turnea: i was just about to post that article on the "disfunctional" and "sloppy" security. The UN endanged the lives of it's employees by not securing the facility appropriatly and for refusing American help. Would Kofi's friend, who was the head cheese in Iraq for the UN, be alive if he had accepted American security? Maybe.
Blaming the US after you refused OUR help is wrong
Blaming the US after you refused OUR help is wrong
Once again the conclusion-jumpers are proven wrong. The world will eventually be a safer and more peaceful place when we accept that in most cases the only way to achieve peace is through the use of force. Sitting around the tea-table and hoping for the best just isn't going to cut it.
All the calls for 'respecting the wishes of the international community' are nothing more than excuses for not making the tough decisions. There are evil elements in this world and they must be dealt with forcefully.
This ain't Disney World folks, so you better stop parading around in your little costumes singing It's a Small World. Some of those lining the parade route are preparing to send you into the 'next' world.
All the calls for 'respecting the wishes of the international community' are nothing more than excuses for not making the tough decisions. There are evil elements in this world and they must be dealt with forcefully.
This ain't Disney World folks, so you better stop parading around in your little costumes singing It's a Small World. Some of those lining the parade route are preparing to send you into the 'next' world.
QUOTE
Remember, this is the first time in our history we attacked a country that has not directly attacked us in some way
Please help me out here, I am trying to remember just exactly when and where Somalia and the Bosnians conducted their offensives against us (just a couple of examples that immediately jump to mind).....
QUOTE
How would we know that these attacks were not expected to some extent? It would not make it possible to stop them if they were...
This is a point that the media seems to missing somehow (please insert your own suggested motive). Although I certainly don't rejoice over the casualties that are being incurred, I'm also not sure there's any evidence that these are excessive given the sitatuation or that they are the result of improper planning. I have heard it mentioned that these casualties aren't even necessarily any higher than those experienced through normal peacetime activities. I don't think I'd go that far, but, when you consider the number of troops there and the situation they are in, I think it's difficult to make a case that the casualty rate is excessively high.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 23 2003, 03:52 PM)
Please help me out here, I am trying to remember just exactly when and where Somalia and the Bosnians conducted their offensives against us (just a couple of examples that immediately jump to mind).....
We were in Somalia because warloards were hijacking food the world was sending to feed the starving people of that land.
We are in Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing.
If you think these two activities are wrong then you have a cold heart.
QUOTE(campbejm @ Oct 23 2003, 12:00 PM)
If you think these two activities are wrong then you have a cold heart.
Don't make this personal. Let's stick to the issues, please.
QUESTIONS TO DEBATE:
Is the US partially to blame (in any reasonable sense) for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad?
Are US tactics largely to blame for the disparity in the number of attacks of US troops versus other coalition members?
If you don't think so, why do you believe so many are ready to accept this view?
QUESTIONS TO DEBATE:
Is the US partially to blame (in any reasonable sense) for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad?
Are US tactics largely to blame for the disparity in the number of attacks of US troops versus other coalition members?
If you don't think so, why do you believe so many are ready to accept this view?
Campbejm,
I was simply responding to the assertion that this is the first time we have attacked another country that had not attacked us first. From your responses, you concur with me that these were certainly not defensive actions, either. I was in no way indicating I felt they were therefore not justified. However, if you examine the reasons you provide (which I agree with),
then, these exact situations were occuring in Iraq (sanctions impacting the delivery of food and other necessities, and ethnic cleansing of pretty much any group deemed opposed to Saddam), so it would only be logical to assume that our attacks were then just as justified here as they were in the other examples. Unless everyone else's heart has suddenly decreased in temperature recently
I was simply responding to the assertion that this is the first time we have attacked another country that had not attacked us first. From your responses, you concur with me that these were certainly not defensive actions, either. I was in no way indicating I felt they were therefore not justified. However, if you examine the reasons you provide (which I agree with),
QUOTE
We were in Somalia because warloards were hijacking food the world was sending to feed the starving people of that land.
We are in Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing.
We are in Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing.
then, these exact situations were occuring in Iraq (sanctions impacting the delivery of food and other necessities, and ethnic cleansing of pretty much any group deemed opposed to Saddam), so it would only be logical to assume that our attacks were then just as justified here as they were in the other examples. Unless everyone else's heart has suddenly decreased in temperature recently
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.