NationStates Jolt Archive

In its arrogance, the Indonesian government has headged the US disaster relief effort in their country about with restrictive stipulations, including: US Fighter jets may not fly through Indonesian air space, US troops on the ground may not carry weapons, all US personnel must leave the country no later than the end of March, and others.

These stipulations have slowed the relief efforts, particularly in Ache province, which is home to a long-running rebellion against the government.

Comments anyone?

why do the soliders need weapons on a mission to help people who have suffered a natural disaster? they're there to distribute food, supplies and medical aid, correct?

why do the soliders need weapons on a mission to help people who have suffered a natural disaster? they're there to distribute food, supplies and medical aid, correct?

That's what I was thinking.

How do fighter jets add to the releif effort? They can only bring in one or two people at a time, they aren't the planes used to drop relief supplies (if any are being used for this, they are C130's and such).

Well, I would think that allowing military personnel their personal issue weapons is an OK thing.

You're a US soldier going to deliver aid to a region full of Islamic militants.

Without any weapons.

Riiiiight...

why do the soliders need weapons on a mission to help people who have suffered a natural disaster? they're there to distribute food, supplies and medical aid, correct?
When distributing food and water to a population that is on the verge of starvation you have to be prepared for the fact that the stronger members of that population may (purely motivated by hunger) attempt to seize more than there fair share of food etc. To ensure that *everyone* has access to the food etc distribution can benefit from armed protection.

When distributing food and water to a population that is on the verge of starvation you have to be prepared for the fact that the stronger members of that population may (purely motivated by hunger) attempt to seize more than there fair share of food etc. To ensure that *everyone* has access to the food etc distribution can benefit from armed protection.
...and if they don't, shoot 'em.

In its arrogance, the Indonesian government has headged the US disaster relief effort in their country about with restrictive stipulations, including: US Fighter jets may not fly through Indonesian air space, US troops on the ground may not carry weapons, all US personnel must leave the country no later than the end of March, and others.

These stipulations have slowed the relief efforts, particularly in Ache province, which is home to a long-running rebellion against the government.

Comments anyone?

No. What they have said is that the US cannot use their airspace to conduct unrestricted training flights - which the Navy insists it's pilots do to stay sharp. They have requested that the US soldiers not carry weapons (you need an M-16 to clear debris?), and to - as much as possible - return to their ships each night rather than to be building camps ashore.


Now, he has suggested that an armed pressence should not be needed by the end of March. Hopefully he is correct.


What the heck makes you think that ANY country would be happy with a large group of armed men running around their country outside of their control? Under what circumstances would that be acceptible within the US?

He has his own domestic security issues to deal with, and his own future to consider. Being seen (especiall in a Muslim country) as letting the US take over in a military way is sure to have a political backlash pretty much anywhere in the world these days.


They need aid remember. Not shock troops.

...and if they don't, shoot 'em.
Would you rather face a desperate mob unarmed?

How do fighter jets add to the releif effort? They can only bring in one or two people at a time, they aren't the planes used to drop relief supplies (if any are being used for this, they are C130's and such).
The fighter jets might be there to escort the C130 transport planes... probably in case some nutcase with a bazooka tries to shoot them down.

I also agree with allowing US personnel to carry weapons. As weird as that sounds, one has to remember that all hell has broken loose over there and the rule-of-law probably does not exist in some places. At the very least, the relief workers need to be able to protect themselves from armed bandits.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

No. What they have said is that the US cannot use their airspace to conduct unrestricted training flights - which the Navy insists it's pilots do to stay sharp. They have requested that the US soldiers not carry weapons (you need an M-16 to clear debris?), and to - as much as possible - return to their ships each night rather than to be building camps ashore.


Now, he has suggested that an armed pressence should not be needed by the end of March. Hopefully he is correct.


What the heck makes you think that ANY country would be happy with a large group of armed men running around their country outside of their control? Under what circumstances would that be acceptible within the US?

He has his own domestic security issues to deal with, and his own future to consider. Being seen (especiall in a Muslim country) as letting the US take over in a military way is sure to have a political backlash pretty much anywhere in the world these days.


They need aid remember. Not shock troops.


I agree but there are always the issues of raiding of supply depo’s and handout centers right now. Rebel theft … so on and so forth.

Not talking about tanks but I don’t think at least a sidearm would be too much to ask

Indonesia's just being paranoid if you ask me.

Anyway, US don't need the weapons and the warships here either. Unless their being 'EXTRA' safe that no Terrorist is going to bomb them.

When distributing food and water to a population that is on the verge of starvation you have to be prepared for the fact that the stronger members of that population may (purely motivated by hunger) attempt to seize more than there fair share of food etc. To ensure that *everyone* has access to the food etc distribution can benefit from armed protection.

Yes, cos gunning down hungry people is the best kind of humanitarian aid.

And it still doesn't justify the fighter presence.

I think this is mainly Indonesia trying to avoid becoming a target for anti-American groups. And painting them as arrogant for not allowing you to turn them into a nice new military base is not going to help US-Islamic relations at all.

Would you rather face a desperate mob unarmed?


You know - most aid organizations do not send in all of their workers in full body armour, camo, and armed to the teeth.

Yes, there is a security pressence needed in such instances, but no - every person delivering aid does not to be in full combat gear to be successful.

My understanding (I'll see if I can find a link) is that this is the compromise reached. That there be a security detail which is armed, but those doing the labour are not.


Frankly - that makes sense.

No. What they have said is that the US cannot use their airspace to conduct unrestricted training flights - which the Navy insists it's pilots do to stay sharp. They have requested that the US soldiers not carry weapons (you need an M-16 to clear debris?), and to - as much as possible - return to their ships each night rather than to be building camps ashore.


Now, he has suggested that an armed pressence should not be needed by the end of March. Hopefully he is correct.


What the heck makes you think that ANY country would be happy with a large group of armed men running around their country outside of their control? Under what circumstances would that be acceptible within the US?

He has his own domestic security issues to deal with, and his own future to consider. Being seen (especiall in a Muslim country) as letting the US take over in a military way is sure to have a political backlash pretty much anywhere in the world these days.


They need aid remember. Not shock troops.


Armed German aircraft drop bombs in the US year round. Admittedly at a training range in the West, but they are armed, and there's really nothing to stop them from dropping them in downtown Las Vegas except being imprisoned when they land.

Indonesia's just being paranoid if you ask me.

Anyway, US don't need the weapons and the warships here either. Unless their being 'EXTRA' safe that no Terrorist is going to bomb them.


Actually, the warships are one of the more important contributions in that they have desalinization plants aboard that can pump out huge volumes of fresh, clean water for those areas that need it.

The fighter jets might be there to escort the C130 transport planes... probably in case some nutcase with a bazooka tries to shoot them down.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Good theory, although C130s are perfectly capable of carrying their own weapons and of performing evasive manuevers. It isn't really comfortable for the guys in the back, but it is very possible.

While I can appreciate the idea that Indonesia doesn't want foreign troops on its soil, Aid Depots MUST have some form of guard to ensure that aid supplies are not stolen.

Part of the point of giving the people affected by the tsunami this aid is that all people should be issued it equally. That's all for nothing if you get a bunch of guys come in and ransack the place to sell to their own people.

So I guess, if Indonesia won't allow US troops to carry arms on their soil, they better damn well be willing to guard those depots themselves.

You know - most aid organizations do not send in all of their workers in full body armour, camo, and armed to the teeth.

Yes, there is a security pressence needed in such instances, but no - every person delivering aid does not to be in full combat gear to be successful.

My understanding (I'll see if I can find a link) is that this is the compromise reached. That there be a security detail which is armed, but those doing the labour are not.


Frankly - that makes sense.
Like I said with my direct response to yours was not thinking "armed to the teeth" but in my understanding a sidearm is not allowed either ...

How do fighter jets add to the releif effort? They can only bring in one or two people at a time, they aren't the planes used to drop relief supplies (if any are being used for this, they are C130's and such).


The problem is that under USN rules, carrier pilots must perform a sea takeoff and landing at least every two weeks or they are deemed to be rusty and must go through some regulated re-training flights etc. So, the aircraft carrier being there almost two weeks already retreated into international waters to let all it's pilots get their cycles in to avoid all that. Once they have all got their logbook entries in place the carrier will - I assume - head back closer to shore.

I think its Indonesia being sensitive to the possible ire of Islamic militants in the afflicted areas.

Wouldn't want to give the Islamic militants the impression that the US is invading - and weapons can certainly give that impression, as can displays of combat aircraft.

I hardly think that Indonesia is being stupid, or even trying to act independent.

Why rile up the irate local Islamic militants any more than they are?

If they get riled up AND the US leaves after giving aid, Indonesia is the one who will have to eat the problem. So, they want to try to avoid that.

Like I said with my direct response to yours was not thinking "armed to the teeth" but in my understanding a sidearm is not allowed either ...


Hey, I'm sure they don't let Oxfam go in armed either.


Just because your guys helping in this instance happen to be soldiers doesn't mean that this country doesn't have their own interests to think about too you know.....

If they are providing security they need to be armed. If they are seconded to the task as labour then they do not. And if being allowed to carry a gun when the Indonesian Army is already providing security makes that much diference to you then pull the soldiers out on principle.

It's really just that simple.

But the initial post seemed to indicate some idea that the US should eb allowed to dictate to another country about how you were going to deliver aid on their soil. Frankly, that's arrogant as hell.

Hey, I'm sure they don't let Oxfam go in armed either.


Just because your guys helping in this instance happen to be soldiers doesn't mean that this country doesn't have their own interests to think about too you know.....

If they are providing security they need to be armed. If they are seconded to the task as labour then they do not. And if being allowed to carry a gun when the Indonesian Army is already providing security makes that much diference to you then pull the soldiers out on principle.

It's really just that simple.

But the initial post seemed to indicate some idea that the US should eb allowed to dictate to another country about how you were going to deliver aid on their soil. Frankly, that's arrogant as hell.
I agree … though we could argue ability to secure America’s interests too but, I just don’t think that they like being held completely weaponless (even sidearm) when anywhere … nor relying on others security (kind of like sitting back and trusting someone else to do your job … but having the added penalty of death if they get it wrong) hard to trust someone that far.

It makes sense from Indonesia's politcal perspective not to want US troops on their soil. They are having problems with Islamic insurgents and terrorism. Inviting the US is a bad idea for their government.

If you ask me, someone else, not so much hated by parts of Indonesia's population, should volunteer to do the humanitarian aid in indonesia. Every one gets what they need, the government is not seen as allying with the US, US can concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Everybody win.

And the best part is that neocon like Eutrusca cannot go around saying that foreign government are being arrogant when they're not. ;)

But the initial post seemed to indicate some idea that the US should eb allowed to dictate to another country about how you were going to deliver aid on their soil. Frankly, that's arrogant as hell.

While I admit that Indonesia can make these conditions (especially so as to not further piss off the Islamic militants in the area),

how is that arrogant?

If I have something you need to survive, and I'm willing to give it to you, and all I have to do is bring it in your house, and you say, "Hey John, I noticed you're wearing your pistol". I say, "Hey, I wear that all the time." And you say, "Well, not in my house". And if I take that something you need to survive and put it back in my car and drive away, how is that arrogant?

I'm respecting your "no weapons in my house" and I still get to wear my pistol.

Theoretically, we should both be happy.

If you ask me, someone else, not so much hated by parts of Indonesia's population, should volunteer to do the humanitarian aid in indonesia. Every one gets what they need, the government is not seen as allying with the US, US can concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Everybody win.


Yes. Some country with a few aircraft carriers and a lot of helicopters and a lot of pre-positioned supplies to spare in the region.

Come on. There's got to be one. Somewhere. Somebody. I'm so sure.

It makes sense from Indonesia's politcal perspective not to want US troops on their soil. They are having problems with Islamic insurgents and terrorism. Inviting the US is a bad idea for their government.

If you ask me, someone else, not so much hated by parts of Indonesia's population, should volunteer to do the humanitarian aid in indonesia. Every one gets what they need, the government is not seen as allying with the US, US can concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Everybody win.

And the best part is that neocon like Eutrusca cannot go around saying that foreign government are being arrogant when they're not. ;)

In truth, having aid workers from the US there is likely to *help* the situation, by demonstrating to the local population that all Americans are not evil people who will hold a gun to their head and try to make them change religions. That said, *military* presence honestly should probably be kept to the minimum necessary, as such presence could give off exactly the wrong idea.

While I admit that Indonesia can make these conditions (especially so as to not further piss off the Islamic militants in the area),

how is that arrogant?

If I have something you need to survive, and I'm willing to give it to you, and all I have to do is bring it in your house, and you say, "Hey John, I noticed you're wearing your pistol". I say, "Hey, I wear that all the time." And you say, "Well, not in my house". And if I take that something you need to survive and put it back in my car and drive away, how is that arrogant?

I'm respecting your "no weapons in my house" and I still get to wear my pistol.

Theoretically, we should both be happy.
Well seeing as you're delivering internationnal aid, it's arrogant to say that the US alone can decide if and how you get that aid.

Actually, the warships are one of the more important contributions in that they have desalinization plants aboard that can pump out huge volumes of fresh, clean water for those areas that need it.

Really? Thats interesting.

I think East Canuck says it best. Best not to provoke them. Some are really xenophobic about Americans. Their the Great Satan you know. :p

Well seeing as you're delivering internationnal aid, it's arrogant to say that the US alone can decide if and how you get that aid.

I'm still providing a service. If I'm using a military helicopter that has guns mounted on it, then that's what I'm using.

If you don't want the guns, I don't use the helicopter.

Soldiers wear guns all the time. Marines especially. So if I have Marines on board the helicopter to help fly it, or be the crew chief, or drop boxes out the back, they are Marines first. If you don't want the weapons, then you don't get the Marines or the helicopter.

I'd be glad to base your helicopters on board my carrier so that you can move the aid yourself. I wonder why some European countries haven't thought of that one. But I'm sure your military helicopter crews come with guns as well.

OK, civilian helicopters then. Haven't seen one on the news yet, have you?

In its arrogance, the Indonesian government has headged the US disaster relief effort in their country about with restrictive stipulations, including: US Fighter jets may not fly through Indonesian air space, US troops on the ground may not carry weapons, all US personnel must leave the country no later than the end of March, and others.

These stipulations have slowed the relief efforts, particularly in Ache province, which is home to a long-running rebellion against the government.

Comments anyone?

Try "idiot" Since when did another nation need fighter planes and armed men on its soil to distribute food and water?
Also, let's try "MY GOD! NOT ALLOWING FIGHTER PLANES INTO INDONESIA! THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS PEOPLE ACT LIKE THEY ALMOST OWN THE COUNTRY! HOW ARROGENT!"
Also Ache is in a mess as it is, releif does need to be sent there, but it is hardly like the Indonesian government, who have dealt with the rebels in the past, are going to allow US troops to go in handing out relief all gung-ho now are they? It's easier they do it as they know the terrain, beleives, customs, habits etc etc.
All about saving lives, not killing more.

Well, I would think that allowing military personnel their personal issue weapons is an OK thing.

You're a US soldier going to deliver aid to a region full of Islamic militants.

Without any weapons.

Riiiiight...

Just Islamic? Try: Maoist, Islamic, and several other groups. See my above comment.

Well, we don't have to have the carrier and its helicopters now, do we?

Let's just sail home and let the aid distribute itself.

That way,
1) the militants are not aggrieved by the presence of US forces in any way, shape, or form.
2) the government's rules are obeyed
3) the US military keeps to its rules and regulations
4) the aid gets distributed by the huge number of civilian organizations who just happen to have large numbers of aircraft and helicopters in the region right now to do what the US was doing

I'm still providing a service. If I'm using a military helicopter that has guns mounted on it, then that's what I'm using.

If you don't want the guns, I don't use the helicopter.

Soldiers wear guns all the time. Marines especially. So if I have Marines on board the helicopter to help fly it, or be the crew chief, or drop boxes out the back, they are Marines first. If you don't want the weapons, then you don't get the Marines or the helicopter.

I'd be glad to base your helicopters on board my carrier so that you can move the aid yourself. I wonder why some European countries haven't thought of that one. But I'm sure your military helicopter crews come with guns as well.

OK, civilian helicopters then. Haven't seen one on the news yet, have you?
Yes I get what you mean. And I'm sure that nobody stepped up to volunteer their guys because the situation was dealt with in a couples of meetings and both parties came to an agreement.

But still, to go back to your original analogy, if the whole neighbouhood comes together to get the good that Little Johnny need and their say to you "You're the closest, go give them". It's rather arrogant to say to little Johnny "Listen, in order to get what the neighbourhood bought you, you need to agree to let me carry my gun even if you have a no gun rule in the house."

What I'm trying to say it's that calling Indonesia arrogant in this instance comes off as arrogant in itself. A better term would have been in order.

But I see the whole situation as a tempest in a teacup.

Well, Indonesia certainly wasn't arrogant. They know the political situation on the ground there better than anyone, and it's their home.

They make the rules in their home.

Well, Indonesia certainly wasn't arrogant. They know the political situation on the ground there better than anyone, and it's their home.

They make the rules in their home.
Yeah I agree ... I have some issues with personal issued weapons not being issued (or at least can understand why they have problems with it) and some other thing ... it is their right to refuse but it may not be the smart thing to do ... (sounding bad but ... yeah)

Well, we don't have to have the carrier and its helicopters now, do we?

Let's just sail home and let the aid distribute itself.

Seconded. Lots of muslim countries are really paranoid. Including mine (neighbouring Malaysia).

I think the problem is a lack of ability to empathize.

Suppose that there had been a huge tragedy on US soil about 20 years ago. Supose even further that the Soviet Union had offered aid. How many US citizens would've been ok with a bunch of Soviet soldiers wandering around their homes carrying large weapons? How many people would have felt safer with Soviet fighter jets flying over their heads?

I think the problem is a lack of ability to empathize.

Suppose that there had been a huge tragedy on US soil about 20 years ago. Supose even further that the Soviet Union had offered aid. How many US citizens would've been ok with a bunch of Soviet soldiers wandering around their homes carrying large weapons? How many people would have felt safer with Soviet fighter jets flying over their heads?
Soviet no ... probably not ... but we were in direct oposition

Though someone like britton who was not,or spain or any of the other more neutral powers(twords us) ... then yeah would have been fine by me.

I would also have to respect the needs and feelings of thoes that were working so hard to help me

Soviet no ... probably not ... but we were in direct oposition

Though someone like britton who was not,or spain or any of the other more neutral powers(twords us) ... then yeah would have been fine by me.

I would also have to respect the needs and feelings of thoes that were working so hard to help me

To the majority of Indonesians, the US is exactly what the Soviet Union was to us.

They are raised from birth, brought up to believe all or most of the following things:
(a) All Americans are Christian
(b) Shows like Baywatch and Melrose Place are an adequate representation of the American, and by association, the Christian lifestyle.
(c) Christians, and by association, Americans will attempt to force their religion upon you and your children through the use of force.
(d) The US is attempting to take over the entire world, especially Muslim countries.

The truthfulness (or lack thereof) of these statements is irrelevant. Many things that your average American believed about Soviets were untrue as well, but that wouldn't have stopped us.

To the majority of Indonesians, the US is exactly what the Soviet Union was to us.

They are raised from birth, brought up to believe all or most of the following things:
(a) All Americans are Christian
(b) Shows like Baywatch and Melrose Place are an adequate representation of the American, and by association, the Christian lifestyle.
(c) Christians, and by association, Americans will attempt to force their religion upon you and your children through the use of force.
(d) The US is attempting to take over the entire world, especially Muslim countries.

The truthfulness (or lack thereof) of these statements is irrelevant. Many things that your average American believed about Soviets were untrue as well, but that wouldn't have stopped us.


But incorrect assumption or not we were in the middle of the cold war and a nuclear arms race ... you picked a country as an example that we at the time were so in contention with that we both almost started nuclear war ... hardly an accurate analogy to us and Indonesia and us relations right now.

But incorrect assumption or not we were in the middle of the cold war and a nuclear arms race ... you picked a country as an example that we at the time were so in contention with that we both almost started nuclear war ... hardly an accurate analogy to us and Indonesia and us relations right now.

Not really. The only difference is that the fear and misconceptions went both ways.

Remember that, throughout the cold war, the Soviets were still considered our allies officially. We were never actually at war with them.

What you are also failing to see is that the view that your average Indonesian has of the US government is on par with the view that your average American had of the Soviet government in 1985.

Not really. The only difference is that the fear and misconceptions went both ways.

Remember that, throughout the cold war, the Soviets were still considered our allies officially. We were never actually at war with them.

What you are also failing to see is that the view that your average Indonesian has of the US government is on par with the view that your average American had of the Soviet government in 1985.
But the level is not pushed to the point that it was in the cold war … misconceptions yes but not the sure terror we had for each other just living through another day.

I just don’t think they are of an equal level

But the level is not pushed to the point that it was in the cold war … misconceptions yes but not the sure terror we had for each other just living through another day.

I just don’t think they are of an equal level

In order to be something like the cold war, both countries have to have near equal military capabilities. Surely you don't believe that Indonesia is on par with us militarily?

Again, I didn't say that there were two-way fears and tensions in this case, nor are they necessary as we are talking about the Indonesian attitude alone. But anyone who has been to Indonesia can tell you that the general feeling towards the US government as an entity involves no less tension than that which the US held for the Soviet Union back in the day.

Suppose I was in a fight with another person. Everyone on both sides would know that I was in that fight and would know about the tensions right?

Now suppose that I was very angry at and in fear of another person. I didn't really tell them about it, but it was there. Do you really think that my tension is by definition any less than it would be if I was actively arguing with someone?

In order to be something like the cold war, both countries have to have near equal military capabilities. Surely you don't believe that Indonesia is on par with us militarily?

Again, I didn't say that there were two-way fears and tensions in this case, nor are they necessary as we are talking about the Indonesian attitude alone. But anyone who has been to Indonesia can tell you that the general feeling towards the US government as an entity involves no less tension than that which the US held for the Soviet Union back in the day.

Suppose I was in a fight with another person. Everyone on both sides would know that I was in that fight and would know about the tensions right?

Now suppose that I was very angry at and in fear of another person. I didn't really tell them about it, but it was there. Do you really think that my tension is by definition any less than it would be if I was actively arguing with someone?

I understand the principal but I don’t think even their one way fear of us is pushed to the level of comparison of soviet jets flying over our heads in the middle of a nuclear arms race … I just don’t understand.

Never mind lets move on

I understand the principal but I don’t think even their one way fear of us is pushed to the level of comparison of soviet jets flying over our heads in the middle of a nuclear arms race … I just don’t understand.

There are greater things to fear than death.

I don't expect you to understand. Hell, I don't even understand. I am just pointing out that we are dealing with a completely different society with completely different viewpoints. We can't start calling names without at least *trying* to understand.

Well, we could do what we did when we sent aid to Kosovo.

Fly far overhead at night, in cargo aircraft, and drop huge pallets of food and other supplies without any prior notice.

That way, it will appear that some unknown aircraft just dropped unmarked stuff out of the sky.

No one will know who did it.

Well, we could do what we did when we sent aid to Kosovo.

Fly far overhead at night, in cargo aircraft, and drop huge pallets of food and other supplies without any prior notice.

That way, it will appear that some unknown aircraft just dropped unmarked stuff out of the sky.

No one will know who did it.

Or, you could just send in the cargo aircraft to land during the day, but don't have fighter patrols or legions of armed marines. More or less the same, but you get the credit for doing it and the Indonesians have had their rules respected.

There are greater things to fear than death.

I don't expect you to understand. Hell, I don't even understand. I am just pointing out that we are dealing with a completely different society with completely different viewpoints. We can't start calling names without at least *trying* to understand.
Im not trying to understand but from my point of view right now roals strictly reversed I personaly wouldent mind them carying a sidearm or god forbid a rifle but that is how I see it not everyone

Or, you could just send in the cargo aircraft to land during the day, but don't have fighter patrols or legions of armed marines. More or less the same, but you get the credit for doing it and the Indonesians have had their rules respected.
Who cares about credit ... and thoes legions are the ones helping do the phisical labor

Im not trying to understand but from my point of view right now roals strictly reversed I personaly wouldent mind them carying a sidearm or god forbid a rifle but that is how I see it not everyone

Of course not.

But you haven't been raised from birth to believe that all Indonesians are evil, immoral Muslim militants who will attempt to convert you at gunpoint and wish to take over your country, now have you?

Of course not.

But you haven't been raised from birth to believe that all Indonesians are evil, immoral Muslim militants who will attempt to convert you at gunpoint and wish to take over your country, now have you?
No but I dont think I would be caring about it too much if something like that happened and thoes people were helping me get food ... couldent care less actualy but maybe a persona quirk

No but I dont think I would be caring about it too much if something like that happened and thoes people were helping me get food ... couldent care less actualy but maybe a persona quirk

You wouldn't care if the people carrying weapons and flying fighter jets in your nearly demolished country were people who you believed wanted to force you into submission and take over your country?

I doubt that, since you already said you would not have wanted to allow Soviets to do so.

You wouldn't care if the people carrying weapons and flying fighter jets in your nearly demolished country were people who you believed wanted to force you into submission and take over your country?

I doubt that, since you already said you would not have wanted to allow Soviets to do so.
No I did not say I didn’t want it but could see how others could (or at least that’s what I meant to imply)

Like I said maybe a personal thing … if I was starving and sick I really wouldn’t give a god damn honestly (and I AM being honest the best I can) and I would WANT my government to make it as easy for them to help as they can if the government cant do it themselves

No I did not say I didn’t want it but could see how others could (or at least that’s what I meant to imply)

Like I said maybe a personal thing … if I was starving and sick I really wouldn’t give a god damn honestly (and I AM being honest the best I can) and I would WANT my government to make it as easy for them to help as they can if the government cant do it themselves

=) As would I (or at least I think I would - I've never been in the situation).

However, your average human being isn't especially logical, especially not when vulnerable.

=) As would I (or at least I think I would - I've never been in the situation).

However, your average human being isn't especially logical, especially not when vulnerable.
Suppose not , though the government should be in a position to be reasonable … being they are probably well fed and safe

Aceh province has been the scene of fighting between seperatist militias and Indonesian troops over the last few years. Going in armed may be prudent.

Aceh province has been the scene of fighting between seperatist militias and Indonesian troops over the last few years. Going in armed may be prudent.
Not to mention all the isues they have had with raids on aid stations...

I am thinking prudance rather then just to appease their ego

It makes sense from Indonesia's politcal perspective not to want US troops on their soil. They are having problems with Islamic insurgents and terrorism. Inviting the US is a bad idea for their government.

If you ask me, someone else, not so much hated by parts of Indonesia's population, should volunteer to do the humanitarian aid in indonesia. Every one gets what they need, the government is not seen as allying with the US, US can concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Everybody win.

And the best part is that neocon like Eutrusca cannot go around saying that foreign government are being arrogant when they're not. ;)
Um ... I'm not a neocon, just for your information.

Um ... I'm not a neocon, just for your information.
Well you certainly look like one most of the time.

Anyway, I apologize. Ddin't mean to paint you for something you're not.

Well, I would think that allowing military personnel their personal issue weapons is an OK thing.

You're a US soldier going to deliver aid to a region full of Islamic militants.

Without any weapons.

Riiiiight...
yeah because we all know, if it s not america, its full of islamic militants. some one pull up that map about how america sees the rest of the world, you know the one that says "there be dragons"

there are usntable areas, but its not everywhere

yeah because we all know, if it s not america, its full of islamic militants. some one pull up that map about how america sees the rest of the world, you know the one that says "there be dragons"

there are usntable areas, but its not everywhere
You just hate our freedom. BTW, would you like an all expense paid trip to Cuba? You'd be staying in the newly modernized Guantanamo Bay Hilton.

why do the soliders need weapons on a mission to help people?And why does the Red Cross need Figther Jets?

You just hate our freedom. BTW, would you like an all expense paid trip to Cuba? You'd be staying in the newly modernized Guantanamo Bay Hilton.
sure, i hear its pretty good as long as you stay in the touristy centered areas there in cuba, will you be paying all expenses?

and i dont hate our freedom, i hate the idiots who think we have the uber freedom compared to the rest of the industrialized/first world naitons

Well, we don't have to have the carrier and its helicopters now, do we?

Let's just sail home and let the aid distribute itself.

That way,
1) the militants are not aggrieved by the presence of US forces in any way, shape, or form.
2) the government's rules are obeyed
3) the US military keeps to its rules and regulations
4) the aid gets distributed by the huge number of civilian organizations who just happen to have large numbers of aircraft and helicopters in the region right now to do what the US was doing
Exactamente...If they say they dont need the carrier and Choppers...that means they can do without.

Its up to them really.

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which is leading the U.S.
military's relief effort, steamed out of Indonesian waters Wednesday
because the U.S. Navy has permission from the Indonesians only to
fly aircraft into its airspace that are directly supporting the
humanitarian operation, said Lt. Cmdr. John M. Daniels, a spokesman
for the Lincoln carrier strike group. Helicopters will still deliver
aid to Sumatra's devastated coast, however.

Indonesia declined to let the ship's fighter pilots use its airspace
for training missions. Under Navy rules, pilots of carrier-based
warplanes cannot go longer than 14 days without flying, or their
skills are considered to have degraded too far. Since the Abraham
Lincoln has been stationed off Sumatra since Jan. 1, the carrier
moved out of Indonesian waters so its pilots could conduct their
training flights in international airspace.



Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said foreign troops would be
out of the country by March 31.

"A three-month period is enough, even the sooner the better," Kalla
said.

The government also ordered aid workers and journalists to declare
travel plans or face expulsion from Aceh as authorities moved to
reassert control of the rebellion-wracked area.

The White House said Wednesday that it had asked the Indonesian
government to explain the restrictions.

"We hope that the government of Indonesia and the military in
Indonesia will continue the strong support they have provided to the
international relief efforts so far," White House press secretary
Scott McClellan said.

why do the soliders need weapons on a mission to help people who have suffered a natural disaster?

There are several reasons.

1. In the worst hit province of Ache there is a civil war going on and this disaster has only slowed it down not stopped it. American military personnel on relief missions could end up in the middle of the shooting and should have a means to protect themselves.

2. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. There are radicals there that don't like Americans, especially American military. The military should have some means of protecting themselves in case they become the target of these radicals.

Flying.

1. Pilots must maintain proficiency. Taking off and landing on a carrier is probably the most dangerous job in the world. If the pilots cannot maintain proficiency by flying training missions, a lot of people on the aircraft carrier could end up dead.

2. Helicopters are flying a lot of relief missions. Some people over there don't like us even thought we are trying to save lives of their fellow countrymen. It sure would be nice to be able to protect and rescue our crewmembers if a helicopter were shot down.

Why war ships.

War ships have many things that are needed in the relief effort. Things like medical personnel, food, distillers to make drinking water from seawater, and other necessary supplies. They also have helicopters to deliver those supplies.

The war ships happened to be in the neighborhood when the disaster hit. They were able to respond immediately.

No camps.

Having to shuffle hundreds of people to the shore in the morning and back to the ship in the evening sure hampers the relief effort. Not very efficient at all.

Hey, we tried but if they don't want our help, we can go home. I feel very sorry for the thousands of poor people who will suffer even more because of the stupidity of their own government. How sad. :(

But the initial post seemed to indicate some idea that the US should eb allowed to dictate to another country about how you were going to deliver aid on their soil. Frankly, that's arrogant as hell.

Ever heard the saying "Beggars can't be choosers" ?

I think it's arrogant as hell to turn to someone who is helping you and say "No, we want it done this way"

Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said foreign troops would be
out of the country by March 31.

"A three-month period is enough, even the sooner the better," Kalla
said.And you don't see this as arrogant and ungrateful, Zepp?

It's like me helping a man paint his house and having him say "Get the hell out of here by 3pm"

Well, we don't have to have the carrier and its helicopters now, do we?

Yes they do. Many roads and bridges were destroyed. There are no landing fields for fixed wing aircraft. Only helicopters can reach many parts of the devastated region. There are not enough civilian helicopters to do the job and helicopters can't fly in from other countries because they don't have the range. They would have to be brought in by boat, which would take weeks.

So yes, the military helicopters are desperately needed to fly relief missions.