US Soldiers: Beatings of Iraqi detainees was routine

[Mr.V.]

Thin Black Line--
I send an video of us C-130 gunshipping a bunch of people from 13,000 feet in Afghanistan LONG before the IEDs/terrorist attacks etc, and yet you still stand behind your 1:1 warrior fighting style. My only argument is that we don't adhere to the 1:1 code of war either. The ENTIRE previous gulf war was fought from air and tanks. You fail to disprove that. On most of these counter insurgency missions we go in with M1 abrahms tanks, air support, artillery etc. Giving me one example of a 1:1 fight is hardly representative of the complete picture. Look at the reports from Falluja and Tal Afar. We've killed people with remote control drones that any 11 year old who played enough HALO could do.

Second, your point that we would always beat them in a 1:1 fight is EXACTLY why they fight the way they do. They can't beat us in a what we consider to be a "fair fight". So they fight by IEDs, guerilla warfare, and terrorism. And it WORKS. (I said terrorism in my last post, and I acknowledge it again. We don't aim for innocents, they do. I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying that's how they are fighting and unless you can show me credible evidence that we can stop it, they seem to be winning). I'm also saying that we aren't innocent of killing civilians. Just because we don't aim for them doesn't make it any less tragic that innocent people die.

Also YOU are arguing moral relativism, not me. I'm not saying it's okay that they are engaging in terror attacks on civilians or beheading prisoners. It's morally reprehensible. I'm also saying it's not okay to torture detainees and give them no access to trial or representation or council with international organizations. It's you who are saying, "well at least they still have heads" Why get all in a fuss if they are smeared with feces and piled nude in a homoerotic dogpile? THAT is relativism. We should get upset that they are slaughtering civilians and we should be equally upset when we torture detainees or don’t bother gathering enough intelligence when we smart-bomb a building and it turns out to be a daycare center. We should not engage in the "well at least we don't ... " argument.

Oh and about your Iraq as an extremist magnet BS. I guess it's part of your moral relativism you like to accuse others of having. For that argument to make sense, you would have to either acknowledge that we did a piss-poor job securing the border and securing the peace in Iraq and this is an unfortunate biproduct OR we purposely allow these terrorists and extremists to flood into Iraq so they can kill and destroy innocent Iraqi civilians instead of focusing on killing Americans "because better them than us." Either way, it doesn't reflect well on our ability to "liberate" people. Remember THEY called it Operation Iraqi Freedom, not me.

 

[GoRon]

we should be equally upset when we torture detainees or don’t bother gathering enough intelligence when we smart-bomb a building and it turns out to be a daycare center

And we as a nation do get upset. There is media frenzy, trials, weeping wailing and knashing of teeth on forum boards. The US public has put people in charge over the years that have put systems in place to keep us civilized even in war. Systems do break down but we pick up where we left off and try to do better next time.

Where are our enemies checks and balance? Who is holding them accountable?

 

[Marshall]

US Soldiers: Beatings of Iraqi detainees was routine

Yea well, so what.

 

[Mr.V.]

GoRon--

Where are our enemies checks and balance? Who is holding them accountable?

Since we decided to "liberate" them, we are now responsible for the checks and balances. WE have to keep the enemy in line and hold them accountable. That's the trouble of setting up a democracy. We made ourselves responsible for the security of the Iraqi people and we are failing them in that mission. Everytime the terrorists are able to bomb civilians or gunmen shoot up an elementary school we are responsible for not having defended them, for not having secured the border to prevent these people from flooding in, for not having trained an iraqi militia soon enough, for having the arrogance that we could do this whole operation on the cheap.

The terrorists are guilty for the murder of the innocent. We are guilty for not protecting them.

 

[Amusetec]

Frist of all on WMD nobody could say for sure if he had them or not there was alot of evidence for them. Even though we did not find any they have found alot of equipment used to manfacture them, and who would want to trust Saddam with them.
He was supporting terroism he paid suicide bombers families had some in his country it was a sort of safe haven for them.
Now on if the end of the Gulf War Ces fire yep we have been at war with Iraq since 1991 it never ended and I belive Iraq has been shooting at us for years :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Has it done any good? YEP Lybia. Saudi is now going after them.

Hussein had already kicked the crap out of the worst of the lot (Iran)

well not exactly the reason we helped out Iraq in the war with Iran is becuse Iran was beating the crap out of Iraq and Iraq was about to fall to Iran, we did not want Iran to be incontrol of Iraq, then there would be a real problem so we helped Iraq out to the point of a stand off where no one could win.

CAnnoneer

Quote:

Ironically POWs are expected to resist, try to escape


To my knowledge, there are no such standing orders. If there are, I still believe it is simply impolite to do so if you are given a good treatment. That is why movies like "The Great Escape" irritate me.

What kind of lib. crap is this impolite where do you think you are the hilton?

Quote:
There is a reason why POWs are required to continue fighting in any way they can. It takes men and supplies from the front to keep them locked up and to search for them when the escape.


And if you are a POW and start pulling such crap, exactly what do you expect to receive in return? A chocolate cake?

Standing orders like that are IMO both insane and criminal. Their hidden meaning is that as a soldier, you are nothing but an inaminate resource to be expended and used up to the last ounce. If your own command treats you like cannon fodder to be spent for maximal advantage, they IMO forfeit any allegiance you might have towards them. Btw, how is that philosophy any different from suicide bomber squads? In both cases, you are ordered to terminate yourself, causing maximal damage to the opposite side.

Ok let me get this right if I resist as a prisoner I deserve to get the crap beat out of me. The why are you saying what the solders did was wrong most of the prisoners that got that treatment where the ones causing trouble.

And yes as a soldier you are inaminate resource to be expended if it is needed to reach your objective. Can you say D-Day Iwo Jima. Would we have won WWII if the people of this country acted the way we do today. There is alot of evidence that the reason we lost the Vietnam war was becuse of this crap that is going on now.

Quote:
The fact is that the enemy in this war used to throw their opposition into wood chippers and had official state rapists


Utter nonsense, Zundfolge. This particular falsehood was unmasked as British-government propaganda a long time ago.

but them chopping off arms hands and all sorts of body parts for as small a reason as decent. oh yea Javafiend, CAnnoneer are you not glad that all those soldiers gave there lives so you can say this stuff with out having to worry about being tortured and body parts cut off? You know that if you sayed this stuff in Old Iraq or most governments that the libs like to hold up you would. and if you say that is false hood how come a bunch of those came to Houston to get new ones.

As far as beating prisoners well when a child is bad there is a time for a good spanking. These being children the size of adults spankings have to be alittle diffrent.

 

[joab]

Hkmp5sd

Yes they are winning and beating us badly.
So far they have been able to keep the oil fields closed, prevented power and water from getting to the population, prevented the national election, pushed back the deadline for the elected government to take power, prevented the constitution from being drafted and have secretly restored Saddam, who is running the country now from his jail cell, to power.

Here's your first clues that I was using sarcasm

The oil fields are operating un molested, I believe

Water and electricity was brought on line months ago

The people did vote in a national election, Remember the purple fingers? It was all over the news for a day or two

The elected government has taken power

And have drafted their constitution

And Saddam is just sitting in the corner of his cell with his Fruit Loops. He ain't running nothing two things Jack and.. ,you know the rest

Your second clue appears in post#72, my second posting

You do realize I was being sarcastic right

 

[Mr.V.]

joab-

here's your clue that you should have meant what you said...

The oil fields are operating un molested, I believe

uhhh okay...
http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm

Water and electricity was brought on line months ago

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/12/iraq.livingsurvey/index.html
"According to the survey, 98 percent of Iraqi households are connected to the national electricity grid, but only 15 percent find the supply stable."

The elected government has taken power

if those elected leaders aren't assassinated before they get to do anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/i...&en=1d4f662cec46b775&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1791290
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/29/iraq/main705304_page2.shtm
This is just the tip of the iceberg.

And have drafted their constitution

Drafted does NOT mean ratified. And neither means anything if they can't enforce it. I'd be cautiously optomistic at best that they will have a functional constitution in october.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050926/wl_nm/iraq_constitution_dc_1

And Saddam is just sitting in the corner of his cell with his Fruit Loops

Who needs Saddam to run the show when you've got Al Zarqawi doing a bang up job.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_09-14-05.html

 

[Mr.V.]

GoRon--

instead of accusing me of “weak thinking” try doing some strong reading...

Thin Black Line was arguing that we are this noble fair fighting force who meets face to face in every fight and they are thuggish cowards who throw sand in our eyes and run behind a mosque. Since they essentially have no worthy Anti Aircraft, by his argument we are essentially cowards hiding in B52s. I’m saying this is the modern face of war. We have superior technology and air superiority; they are fighting with guerilla attacks and terrorism. Did I say one way of fighting was more wrong or right? But to say we always fight the 1:1 fair fight is an incorrect statement. To act as though we’ve never had collateral damage from our attacks is ludicrous. War is ugly. I think the death of innocent people is tragic no matter how they are killed. I don't try to equate two wrongs. Or justify one wrong with another. If you would like to do that go right ahead.

To try and draw moral equivalance between isolated acts of violence we supposedly committed against our prisoners and the beheadings and murders commited by the terrorists is also weak.

Again, I don't believe I EVER drew any moral equivalence. I think to do either is independently wrong. If you want to get into the: insurgent wrongs <= terrorists wrongs >> abu ghraib scandle <= misguided munitions > political assassinations << attacks on civilians debate go right ahead, I’ll stay out of that discussion.

Sorry was that too much emoting for you?

 

[CAnnoneer]

Wow, what responses. Okay, shall address at leisure.

What kind of lib. crap is this impolite where do you think you are the hilton?

No, I do not think I am in Hilton. But, I think there is room for mutual respect. I shall repeat the reference of the Afrika Corps and the British fighting war as gentlemen. That IMO is how wars should be fought between civilized nations. Call me stupid, call me outdated, if you wish. Fine by me. If conscription is reinstituted (eventually will be) and I get drafted, I will be happy to fight for my country and do not intend to get captured. But, if I do get captured and get good treatment, I will not try to escape to cause unnecessary trouble. Now go ahead and laugh.

You prefer to resist in the same situation. It is your choice. You will impede the enemy's fighting ability by exactly one round of 7.62x39. Good for you. The hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on your upbrigning, education, training, maintenance etc. would all be equaled to that round. But, it is your life. Go ahead.

And yes as a soldier you are inaminate resource to be expended if it is needed to reach your objective.

If you would like to reduce yourself to that, it is again your choice. I won't.

CAnnoneer are you not glad that all those soldiers gave there lives so you can say this stuff with out having to worry about being tortured and body parts cut off?

As opposed to facing the firing squad? Conscripts had no choice. Volunteers went by their own accord. Either way, they have my respect, albeit for different reasons. Show me where I devalued them? All I said was that my independence would not make me a good standard soldier. The rest you invented yourselves.

Observe bountyhunters style of debate. If you are going to be an anti establishment Bush hater, he is the one to emulate. No name calling (usually). Makes coherent points (that I usually disagree with). Doesn't come off as somebody that hates the USA (on the contrary actually). If you want to influence people people you must be able to coherently make your points without resorting to talking points faxed out by the DNC.

I'd still prefer to be my own sort of Bush hater. Came off anti-USA? How come? I don't know what DNC is, probably some dem stuff. It is intriguing that those you disagree with, you summarily assign to pre-made boxes. It does make the world comfortably simpler, but it does produce a cognitive blind spot. Do you see it?

But even if these anti-military types (that are too "smart" to serve their country ) really, truly believed what they were saying, and were'nt just grasping at straws because they dislike our President, I could have an itty-bitty, tiny bit of respect for them.

It does not make me anti-military if I hate the pack of ultracorrupt politicians in bed with foreign interests and careerist top brass. It also does not make me anti-military if I freely admit I am not cut out to be a grunt. Neither does it make me disparaging of a grunt's work or sacrifice to say that I am too brainy to follow orders well. Exactly who do you think developed all the cool toys that kill scumbags and save soldiers' lives every day? Eggheads like me. So, be careful not to throw stones in your own garden.

if my patently false statements give aid and encouragement to the enemy

Exactly which statements are those? Wrong according to whom? Maybe they are my urges to invade S.A.E. and destroy terrorism at its source? Or maybe my statements that I have no problem with 82nd getting rough with terrorists? Or my dislike for corruption and incompetence that if removed would help tighten the noose around terrorists better?

On a related topic, as a patiot, aren't you also concerned about criticism of the current administration being routinely downplayed as unpatriotic? How do you expect to maintain democracy in the US without such criticism? Should we suspend a bunch of freedoms until after the indefinitely far victory over terrorism? In doing so we will be writing a permanent blank check to the powers that be, no matter who is in the White House. You like Bush, so things are peachy now. What happens tomorrow when the same extra powers and mantle of infallibility are passed on to Hillary? Something to think about...

Try reading the Iraq War Resolution. WMDs were the only reason some of the Dems signed on to the war. But the reasons enumerated contain much more than WMDs.

I did read it the first time you asked me. A bunch of reasons including WMD. So? All reasons minus WMD equals business as usual. Otherwise, we would have to invade half the world. Do you recommend that?

You must understand that WMD was the only important item on the menu. Next to nobody would have supported the invasion without it. If you do not believe me, call a hundred random numbers all over the US and you will be convinced. America by nature is anti-war.

9/11 justified Afganistan but everybody knew 9/11 would not justify Iraq, because Saddam (while being a scumbag) had nothing to do with AQ. People had to be riled up, so Bush and co fed them the whopper to get them over the activation barrier. That is why people like me hate him and his entourage of Gogolian "dead souls". It is amazing to me that after all this time some of you guys still do not get that.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Mr V.,

Wow, I actually gave you one on the force vs force from a distance and yet
you completely ignored the most recent terrorist atrocity. Why?

As far as the terrorists having AA --of course they do. What do you think
has brought down the aircraft here in Iraq?

However, I can tell by your response that you did not do your homework
on the small arms engagement......

 

[DRZinn]

This thread needs a little humor...

 

[Mr.V.]

Thin Black Line--

First of all, I did do my homework. Good for her, she kept her wits about her and despite not having any of the advantages I said, she prevailed without any mentioned collateral loss of civilian life. It's the 1:1 fight you mentioned. I didn't dispute that, I was (and still am) saying that one fair fight (or 10 or 15 or however many you can find) which the insurgents lose and we win doesn't mean we ALWAYS fight like that (I've given several examples of when we don’t) or that we would always win if we did (remember Private Lynch, long before the insurgency and IEDs?). I'm glad for Sgt. Hester. I'm glad our boys (and girls) didn't die and the insurgents did.

As for the elementary school, It's a moral abomination. Those responsible need to be brought to justice. It is complete terrorism. I've never said that the insurgents don't use terrorism, and I haven't said it's okay that they do. Please read my posts before throwing accusations.

YOU were accusing other people (namely me) of moral relativism. But you said, "at least they still have their heads" as if anything we do to them is okay because we aren't head choppers. If a guy were to snatch a purse, he'd be committing a wrong. Just because it's not as bad as someone holding up a bank, doesn't make the purse snatching okay or right or understandable. THAT is moral relativism. We should hold people who commit wrongs accountable for those wrongs.

If you want to argue about whose wrongs are worse, you can have that debate. If you want me to say, "killing a bunch of school teachers is incredibly sick and disgusting and wrong and I hope whoever is responsible is found and hung by the neck till they die" I will. I think they should be. If you want me to say "it's worse than a homoerotic feces-smeared dogpile of detainees," I would say it. I think killing school children is worse (BUT LOOK OUT! We’re entering the realm of moral relativism: this wrong is worse than that wrong etc. Is this really a wrong because at least we didn’t do that...)

If you want me to ignore Abu Grahib and our torture of the detainees who have no access or communication to the outside family etc, and are hidden away from human rights observers without ever being charged with a crime...I'll have none of it. If you want me to put away the image of the Inverse Klansman with chicken wire strapped to his nuts just because insurgents committed reprehensible acts of terrorism, I won't do it. I think it's wrong. It isn't the liberation that the name, and the leaders of, Operation Iraqi Freedom promised.

 

[chopinbloc]

let me put this in perspective. it is not immoral or cowardly to attack valid military targets (such as convoys) with whatever means are at your disposal, to include roadside bombs. let me add that i have been at the wrong end of hit and run rocket and mortar attacks. if i were on the other side that is exactly the kind of tactics i would use. it is, however, wrong to purposefully attack civilian targets with the intent to bring harm and death to noncombatants for the purpose of inciting terror in the general populace. every time u.s. ordnance hurts or kills an innocent it is a tragedy and has been regrettable for all of the millenia that humans have been capable of killing at a distance. the difference is that we do not intend to harm noncombatants. further, we do everything we can to reduce the risk to those who are unfortunately caught in a war zone. the treatment of captured fighters is an analog to the method of fighting. our mistreatment of EPWs is a rarity. we as a nation generally deplore their mistreatment and our military branches spend a good deal of time and money preventing it. when it does happen we punish those responsible. as a counterpoint, if you are captured by the enemy you WILL NOT make it out alive. there is a complete and total difference in how we do things. that does not justify mistreatment of EPWs but it is important to keep things in perspective.

 

[Colt]

Cannonfodder

First off, congratulations on having enough free time to spend a good couple of hours a day in a single thread.

It does not make me anti-military if I hate the pack of ultracorrupt politicians in bed with foreign interests and careerist top brass. It also does not make me anti-military if I freely admit I am not cut out to be a grunt. Neither does it make me disparaging of a grunt's work or sacrifice to say that I am too brainy to follow orders well. Exactly who do you think developed all the cool toys that kill scumbags and save soldiers' lives every day? Eggheads like me. So, be careful not to throw stones in your own garden.

Don't flatter yourself. They may be eggheads, but they're definitely nothing like you. Most I know are loyal, hard-working patriots. I'm an egghead, too, but also thankfully not like you. I served 8 years in the USAF, working/developing data systems. I'm now in the private sector working on government contracts. Intelligence and the willingness to serve your country are not mutually exclusive. The military isn't comprised entirely of "grunts."

Exactly who do you think drives the development of all the cool toys, overseas the cool toy programs, and funds all the cool toy projects? The answer is the US military. I work with them everyday.

BTW, "grunt" (as well as "swabby," "jarhead," and "flyboy") is a term used affectionately between individuals that have actually served in the military. You are not entitled to use these terms. (watching JAG reruns, playing paintball, and/or purchasing surplus gunshow BDU's does not exempt you from this rule)

 

[Colt]

Booty Hunter

And how does getting virtually our entire usable military force caught in this quagmire make us safer?

Those on the left would just love for this to be a quagmire. The fact is, it's not even close. Not by a long-shot. But keep hopin', buddy!

P.S. - What's the difference between George Bush and John Kerry?

Bush is President.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Little Horse,

Your flawed line of reasoning, disparaging methods of argument, and clear unabashed contempt for anybody not in the military consign you to the very tight little country of Misanthropia Sociopathia Militaria.

It is so nice (and revolting) to see you expose yourself like that. All that posturing about sacrifice, duty, etc. in service of your country, and then you reveal how much you hate and despise 99% of it. It is exactly the few sociopaths like yourself that fuel the fears of leftists of the military in general. All the front soldiers that are actually fighting for their country will be really thrilled to know what a good job you are doing here passing your own sociopathic values as the values of the military subculture.

Finally, by what you have shown up to now, you are not an "egghead". "Egghead" is reserved for people who actually have both sharp intellect and broad extensive knowledge. As a result of that combination, eggheads see the world in its complexity, are not swayed by cheap propaganda, hate being lied to, have their own independent minds, and are always willing to reexamine and challenge any and all ideas, as per the scientific method. You are nothing like that - you are happy with your opinions and comfortable with your hatreds. So, if you forbid me to use the word "grunt", I forbid you to use the word "egghead".

 

[Art Eatman]

And I forbid any more personal attacks.

Art