# US Army Probes POW Abuse - Video



## girlfiredup (29 Apr 2004)

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/videos500251.shtml


----------



## kruger (29 Apr 2004)

Disturbing. Al-Jazeera must be thrilled, just imagine how they will present the material.


----------



## Northern Touch (30 Apr 2004)

Are those pictures actually verified as being real?


----------



## nULL (30 Apr 2004)

They are....BBC has a slide show of images, as does MSNBC. And Napalm, AL-Jazeera will present the material in the same way that any other major news network will - as a disgusting, probably isolated incident by soldiers under stress. Go read their webpage, it‘s not all propoganda you know - did you know they are one of the only news networks still inside Fallujah?


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (4 May 2004)

What a bunch of garbage, 

Seriously this is nothing compared to what happened in Vietnam.

The American‘s have a notorious history with atrocities on their prisoners. Only 10 Iraqis killed so far? No way there is far more and I‘d be my life on it too.

All of a sudden putting sand bags on prisoner's heads is barbaric? What about the nature of the war itself? American‘s are shooting anything that moves over there and blowing up civilian buildings etc. That‘s not in the Geneva Convention...

This seems all fishy to me, and I‘d doubt that if these pics were real. I‘d also like to know how ,and why, they were revealed.

The last time something like this happened was in Somalia when a Canadian killed one prisoner, the result was the disbandment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. 

The states will probably cover this up, just like the over 10,000 people they killed in Somalia during their "humanitarian mission" that would later become a award winning glory move, Black Hawk Down, at least 500 people were killed in that classic American **** up alone! Makes you think.

Already you can tell that this mistreatment of prisoners is being hushed up since it is being over shadowed by that rescued US POW and the constant fighting in Fallujha.

Just a word of advice, "think outside the box," when watching all these American news stations and some news in Canada too, since they all feed off each other with information provided from the main news centers like CNN, that gives a â Å“distortedâ ? view as to what is really going on.  

Remember, war is always a messy disgusting web of lies and corruption and this one is by proving to be a classic.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Pte.Nomercy:
> [qb]Seriously this is nothing compared to what happened in Vietnam.
> 
> The American‘s have a notorious history with atrocities on their prisoners.[/qb]


What sources are you referencing for this information?  Do you have any hard figures for US "atrocities" in Vietnam?  My Lai is well-documented but which others are you referring to?


----------



## kruger (5 May 2004)

Dorosh are you ignorant or just blind? Is it so hard to believe that during war it‘s hard for soldiers to treat their foe humanely, especially if they had previously lost comrades in battle, and if your opponent may be considered racially inferior by some in particular?


----------



## stukirkpatrick (5 May 2004)

Napalm, Dorosh is just trying to clarify the sources of Nomercy‘s argument.  Anyone can make statements, but for them to be valid they must be sourced.

Don‘t attack the person, attack the argument, by countering it with hard facts.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2004)

I suspect the original post was simply an anti-American flame and that the poster really has no solid basis for his statement.  I requested a clarification.

Oh, Napalm, if you are in fact an expert on US atrocities in Southeast Asia, I would love to read about it.

There are Vietnam veterans who read this board, and I am of the understanding that the vast majority of US servicemen and combat units deployed to that region performed honourably and in the majority of cases, well.  I am not about to insult veterans of that regrettable conflict by standing by while wild accusations are levelled at them.

If you can prove that US soldiers were "notorious" for atrocities in SE Asia, do so now.  Otherwise, an apology is in order to all of VN vets who post here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2004)

Napalm,
I see your back with your usual obnoxious self. You were warned before. Keep it civil and back up your facts. You‘ve done neither. Good bye.


----------



## Bill Smy (5 May 2004)

Here is the official report on the abuse -- Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade.

 http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm 

I saw Brigadier General Karpinski interviewed on a TV talk show. She impressed me as someone who does not take responsibility for anything that reflects badly on her.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Bill Smy:
> [qb]
> I saw Brigadier General Karpinski interviewed on a TV talk show. She impressed me as someone who does not take responsibility for anything that reflects badly on her. [/qb]


Is this part of that "armchair warrior" thingie you mentioned in your other post to me?   

How many prisons have you ever run?


----------



## Bill Smy (5 May 2004)

The point of my comment was not to state that I could have run a prison better. Rather it was to comment on her sense of command responsibility, something the Investigators commented on in their report.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 May 2004)

Bill I got the same impression that you did. It seemed like she was gearing up to play a big game of pass the buck.

I have a feeling i could run the prison better.
Rule 1.
No tourturing the inmates.
Rule 2.
No naked pile ons.
Rule 3.
No cameras. (Why are troops ALWAYS taking pictures of the stupid stuff they do?)

I hate that goofy look the female in the pictures has on her face. I bet she wouldnt be smiling like that if she was alone with an able bodied prisoner or better yet, in one of the cities on patrol where real soldiers are feeling the aftermath of what went on in the prison.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Bill Smy:
> [qb] The point of my comment was not to state that I could have run a prison better. Rather it was to comment on her sense of command responsibility, something the Investigators commented on in their report. [/qb]


Oh, well as long as you‘re not being an armchair warrior, there are certainly enough of those around here.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] Bill I got the same impression that you did. It seemed like she was gearing up to play a big game of pass the buck.
> 
> I have a feeling i could run the prison better.
> ...


It is interesting that supposedly many of the prison staff were contracted civilians rather than soldiers.  From an uninformed point of view, that is a nifty way to avoid paying for GI Bill benefits and pensions, not such a great way for ensuring your prison guards are subject to military law.

Would be interesting to see these American contractors arrested and taken to the Hague for war crimes trials.  Even Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, defended the conduct of his guards on the stand, declaring "I was there to exterminate people, not torment them"     and went on to say that indiscretions by his guards were severely dealt with.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 May 2004)

An interesting slant - 

Yesterday, they were interviewing a member of Iraq‘s new governing council, on the radio station that I listen to. They asked what the council, and Iraqis in general thought of the reports/photos of prisoner abuse. Interestingly, he downplayed the events big time. He said that several members of the council visit the prisons regularly to assess conditions, talk to inmates, etc. He said that most people knew that this was not indicative of the treatment received by prisoners. He indicated that, from an Iraqi point of view, this has little effect, in the grand scheme of things.

He made a number of very interesting comments about a variety of  topics, most of which contradicted the slant that the mainstream media is putting on everything.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (5 May 2004)

Micheal Dorosh,

Firstly, I like to announce that it was not my intention to insult anyone for what I said in my original post.

Secondly, I suggest you pick up a copy of â Å“Vietnam Voices: Perspectives on the War Years, 1941-1982â ? by John Clark Pratt.

In this book I have found it to be very unbiased and very truthful as diary entries and un-falsified reports are published in this book as well as kill statistics of how civilians were killed etc. 

Also there are many incidents described in the book of how GI's suffered severe stress in Vietnam and all the brave and noble actions they did just to survive, as well as putting up with the group of soldiers who sadistically killed and raped civilians there.

The book provides all perspectives on the conflict ranging from the French all the way to the North Vietnamese. 

That is one good source for you right there Dorosh. My original comment was general, and I realize that it is not always the best idea to do so, but I didn't think it would be necessary to provide a list of such events as it is well known, and proven, that this sort of thing happened in Vietnam, hence why soldiers were spat on when they returned and also why this horrible conflict is held in such poor regard.

As for disgracing Vietnam veterans, I was not doing that in my statement, I was referring to the American government acting â Å“so surprisedâ ? that this sort of thing happened, when they were the ones who covered such things up in previous conflicts and deployments.

In 1993 Colin Powel acknowledged in PSA's (Public Service Announcements) that US troops performed atrocities in Somalia for example, killing 10,000 people in the humanitarian mission Operation Restore Hope and apologized to the country of Somalia and the American people and vowed to fix the problem. Just yesterday I saw him on Larry King and he stated â Å“That I never saw anything like it before.â ? Seriously, here is a man who was in two tours in Vietnam and oversaw the cover up of the atrocities in Somalia and he's â Å“surprisedâ ?? 

By the way, I have talked to Vietnam veterans from such as a former Recon Marine who did  three tours there that spanned all the way to Cambodia so I suggest that you do not imply that I do not have great respect for these people who were drafted or thrown into such a controversial conflict. He personally showed me things that he brought back from there and told me of how, as he put it, â Å“everything was ****ed up over there.â ?

Thirdly, I was not aware that American veterans came on this site, I always understood this as Army.ca as a Canadian military oriented site, if anyone was offended by my apparent "Anti-American statement" this was not my intent.

Hopefully this cleared things up.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Pte.Nomercy:
> [QB] Micheal Dorosh,
> 
> Firstly, I like to announce that it was not my intention to insult anyone for what I said in my original post.
> ...


I‘ll have to pick that one up, thanks.  Does it really allege that the majority of units in Vietnam committed "atrocities"?



> That is one good source for you right there Dorosh. My original comment was general, and I realize that it is not always the best idea to do so, but I didn't think it would be necessary to provide a list of such events as it is well known, and proven, that this sort of thing happened in Vietnam, hence why soldiers were spat on when they returned and also why this horrible conflict is held in such poor regard.


I disagree; I don‘t think it is "well proven" at all.  There are a lot of myths about that war.  One is that the war was fought by draftees.  A VN vet on another board informs me the majority of soldiers to serve in country were volunteers - probably a slim majority, but nonetheless a majority.  

I also think the spitting may have been more of a perception on the part of the spitters than any bonafide proof that the troops they were "welcoming" home were war criminals.  Many of those who abused troops coming home were probably protesting the government as much as the troops, but that is a whole other argument which is a bit like counting the angels on the head of a pin.  I am sure their motivations were far more wide ranging than any conviction they had that US troops were war criminals by and large.



> As for disgracing Vietnam veterans, I was not doing that in my statement, I was referring to the American government acting â Å“so surprisedâ ? that this sort of thing happened, when they were the ones who covered such things up in previous conflicts and deployments.
> 
> In 1993 Colin Powel acknowledged in PSA's (Public Service Announcements) that US troops performed atrocities in Somalia for example, killing 10,000 people in the humanitarian mission Operation Restore Hope and apologized to the country of Somalia and the American people and vowed to fix the problem. Just yesterday I saw him on Larry King and he stated â Å“That I never saw anything like it before.â ? Seriously, here is a man who was in two tours in Vietnam and oversaw the cover up of the atrocities in Somalia and he's â Å“surprisedâ ??


So if he never saw anything like that before, I am sure he would be surprised.  Doesn‘t that indicate to you that such conduct was uncommon in Vietnam?

I will recommend a book to you - SOLDIER by Anthony Herbert.  He was the most decorated soldier in the US Army in the Korean War, and a brigade commander in Vietnam.  His book is certainly biased, but does paint a different picture than Oliver Stone did of service conditions there.



> By the way, I have talked to Vietnam veterans from such as a former Recon Marine who did  three tours there that spanned all the way to Cambodia so I suggest that you do not imply that I do not have great respect for these people who were drafted or thrown into such a controversial conflict. He personally showed me things that he brought back from there and told me of how, as he put it, â Å“everything was ****ed up over there.â ?


And he admitted to committing war crimes?



> Thirdly, I was not aware that American veterans came on this site, I always understood this as Army.ca as a Canadian military oriented site, if anyone was offended by my apparent "Anti-American statement" this was not my intent.
> 
> Hopefully this cleared things up.


It does, thanks.  And you should always post as if the whole world is reading; this being the Internet you never know who is dropping by.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (5 May 2004)

We have at least one Vietnam vet who is a regular to this forum, Old Guy.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (5 May 2004)

Michael Dorosh,

To respond to your question/ disagreements:

Yes, this veteran in question did see atrocities first hand, such as the entire wiping out of civilian villages for one. As to if he was apart of that event, only he knows, but he did talk about seeing first hand of such things. 

When I was describing Colin Powell‘s reaction, I was implying that he was lying through his teeth. I have read some where, as soon as I find it you will hear of it, that he even witnessed some atrocities and how he was disturbed by them. 

Even without this, being in the military position he was in before and the high position he is now, it is impossible for him to be "surprised" and "not seen this before" as it is his responsibility to know such things and prevent them. 

So even if he didn‘t see these things in Vietnam, he sure as heck knew about what happened there when he was top brass in the white house, and he definitely knew that (a minority)of US troops did atrocities before Iraq, even though he denied it on Larry King. If he was not educated or had knowledge about this, he wouldn‘t be fit for the job right?  

As for drafty vs volunteer, I didn‘t mean to give more then the other any significance, what matters is that those men were sent there for whatever reason and suffered immensely. However, I would not believe American statistics, as I for one, have seen at least 5 different figures in books etc that talked about how many people were sent over there and how many were drafted or volunteers. The veteran I know personally in question was a volunteer. 

I also agree with your statement about a "minority" doing atrocities. I never said "All Americans in Vietnam/Somalia/Iraq were committing atrocities" I simply said that it had happened and that it was wrong no matter how insignificant the number of criminals performed these acts.

In every occasion where such things happen it is always a minority that smears the reputation of the majority of brave soldiers. 

In fact, these US Iraqi pics happened because of a minority as well. Not to mention when Canadian‘s went to Somalia, it predominately took only ONE person‘s actions, Mcpl. Clayton Matchee, to destroy the entire reputation of the CF and disband the Canadian Airborne Regiment that consisted of around 700 people. 

Hopefully that cleared thing up even more! 

If anyone wishes to reply please feel free to PM (Private Message) or contact me, as I don't want this forum to turn into a 50 page argument.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 May 2004)

Show me an army with no atrocities on its record, and I‘ll show you an army that‘s never left its barracks for so much as a p-ss-up.

No reasonable amount of training and supervision can guarantee that sadists won‘t indulge themselves or that well-balanced people won‘t occasionally and temporarily give in to hate and rage.  I will be greatly surprised if it can be proven that these people did not know 1/ what they were doing, and 2/ that it was wrong.  Individual and systemic failings must be dealt with where they exist, but not permitted to stain any further.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2004)

> The American‘s have a notorious history with atrocities on their prisoners


To go back to the original statement; perhaps I should have drawn the line between civilian atrocities and the treatment of legitimate prisoners of war earlier; I made the mistake of dragging all war crimes into it, but I can live with that.  My point was that I interpreted "notorious" to mean "widespread", as in it was a routine, matter of course for units of the US Army to engage in the murder of innocent people (be they civilians or not).  If that is not what you meant, then I‘ve made a mountain of a molehill.

Yes, the US has had some unfortuntate incidents in their past - the (alleged?) massacre in the early days of the Korean War, for example.  I think you, I and Brad agree that no one is really "clean" when it comes to this incidents, nor do any of us suggest that this should be allowed to happen when it is discovered.  

Since we agree that these incidents are the result of a small minority - in both the US and Canadian armies - I am satisified that our views on this are reasonably similar.  Somalia unfortunately showed that we are no better or worse than the Americans as far as these things go; I suppose if we had to field 500,000 soldiers in the blink of an eye, we would also have a discipline problem or two as well.


----------



## Bill Smy (5 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Marauder (6 May 2004)

First, let me just point out that these Iraqi prisoners were neither summarily executed, nor were they, from what I have gathered, subjected to any "torture" worse than getting smacked around some or getting stripped nekkid. Yes, the people taking pictures are RTFO. Breakdown of discipline and lack of common foocking sense. And I suppose throw in just plain old stupid (what modern day NATO soldier is so beyond numptyfoocked that they take VIDEO and PHOTOS of crap they KNOW will come back to bite them in the ARSE?!?!?!?!) Stupid, stoopid, STUUUUUUUUPID!!! 

Add in that with a BGen who‘s favorite line to the media is that it‘s not any branch‘s fault, (ie HER branch), not any unit‘s fault (ie units under HER command), nor any individuals‘s fault (ie stupid troops under HER purvue). All the  while saying the interrogators and MI types made those (not HER) troops do it. She‘s so fecking mealy mouthed that when I first heard her contortions on camera I swore she took the appropriate course at NDHQ for evading, obfuscating, and spinning the truth. So it‘s pretty obvious that the firings & BCDs should start high up the chain.

Now, let me reiterate: ***none of these Iraqi POWs were shot, stabbed, electrocuted, dismembered, beheaded, burnt, sliced, etc.*** None of the keen old ultraviolence, eh me good ‘lil droogies?

Last point, whenever Americans are executed, shot or stabbed or raped after capture, burnt beyond recognition once killed, beat all to h$ll for shits and giggles, or have their head cut off on video (Daniel Pearl), none of these atrocities seem to upset any "moderate" arseholes in the Arab/Muslim world. There‘s a few muted scuffling of feet and coughing, but the general consensus is that‘s what the "occupiers" (which I guess include liberal journalists and contractors trying to help along the process of rebuilding the shithole Iraq is) should expect and thus accept. But show a few pics of some random naked jackass who was presumably in the prison for trying to kill the "infidels", and its all "stand back kids, it might flare up a bit".

I call horseshiite. I say if the "Arab street" wants a reason to be pissed off, then they should get a damm good reason. Big boys game, big boys rules. Eye for an eye, and put the fear of Allah in the sumbiitches.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 May 2004)

Attitudes like that will only make the situation in Iraq worse.  Yes, it is a double standard to them to get pissed off at americans for humiliating POW‘s while shrugging their shoulders when Iraqi militants execute foreign contractors.  But that doesn‘t mean that we can be insensitive to their concerns.  The American troops over their are supposed to be setting a good example...they‘re supposed to be demonstrating to the Iraqi‘s how we treat people in a civilized democratic society.  While the treatment of those prisoners was not as bad as what has been done to US troops and civilians, it still sets a negative example and makes Americans look like hypocrites.  If the soldiers responsible are not held fully accountable, and if it is not clearly demonstrated to the Iraqi populace that they ARE being held accountable, it‘ll deffinitely damage the way Iraqi civilians view US soldiers.  And that‘s something the US does NOT need.


----------



## K. Ash (6 May 2004)

I think it was on CSmonitor.com that some high ranking pentagon official said "4 idiots just lost the war". I wonder who he was referring to?


----------



## xFusilier (6 May 2004)

> Yesterday, they were interviewing a member of Iraq‘s new governing council, on the radio station that I listen to. They asked what the council, and Iraqis in general thought of the reports/photos of prisoner abuse. Interestingly, he downplayed the events big time. He said that several members of the council visit the prisons regularly to assess conditions, talk to inmates, etc. He said that most people knew that this was not indicative of the treatment received by prisoners. He indicated that, from an Iraqi point of view, this has little effect, in the grand scheme of things.


Perhaps, on the other hand a synonym for Iraqi Governing Council is "American Apointed Puppet Government".  Don‘t forget that a guy named Petain was very supportive of the people that gave him his job, that didn‘t make him right.  All in all at best he‘s probably about as credible as Al-Jazeera.

The fact that the media has raised such an amout of fuss over this arguement is the realization that soliders who are representing what can be seen as the worlds premier liberal democracy should be held to a higher standard of conduct than supporters of a political ideology that spawned a brutal police state which operated for some 30 years.

The question as to whether or not the acts documented in the images shown on 60 minutes can be defined as torture is irrelevant.  If you are trying to win a war on an ideology, it really doesn‘t matter what you or consider those acts to be, it matters in reference to how much of a stimulus it is for individuals to allow themselves to be recruited to terrorist organizations and or the donation of funds to those same organizations.


----------



## Marauder (6 May 2004)

Screw sensitivity and to h#ll with ideology.
Grab them by the balls, and their black hearts and medival minds will follow.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 May 2004)

Yeah.

"Give us your hearts and minds or we‘ll burn your god**** huts down".

Worked real well in Vietnam.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Marauder:
> [qb] Screw sensitivity and to h#ll with ideology.
> Grab them by the balls, and their black hearts and medival minds will follow. [/qb]


Yeah, that‘s right, their medieval minds who learned to fly commercial airliners. Underestimating one‘s enemies is always dangerous.  Let‘s kid ourselves into thinking they don‘t have the ability to make nuclear bombs while we‘re at it.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2004)

Marauder

It has been tried.  It didn‘t work.  It was the working strategy for a good chunk of the Senior US Staff in Vietnam.  

Kind of drowned out the advice of the Green Berets and various allied advisors.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (7 May 2004)

Friggin well said Marauder!

Spot on.

I don‘t believe it has been tried. Not to the full solution. You don‘t negotiate with coyotes. you destroy them. These buggers never tried negotiating with us on say 9/10? Or maybe before the other dozen despicable cowardly attacks?  Like he said.. Big boys games, big boys rules..


----------



## 48Highlander (7 May 2004)

So what are you suggesting, genocide?  If that‘s your solution then you‘re just as much of a fanatic as Osama and his ilk.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Padraig OCinnead:
> [qb] Friggin well said Marauder!
> 
> Spot on.
> ...


Hey, "Big Boy", can you even explain to the crowd why the 9/11 attacks occurred?

If you can‘t do that, you are in no position to plan out a strategy for preventing another attack or punishing those who perpetrated the crime.

Has it occurred to you that these "cowardly attacks" were done for a reason?

I am not defending them, I am saying that each story has two sides.

As for your other thoroughly moronic comments, I believe Hitler compared all Jews to lice and rats, too.   Who exactly are you calling "coyotes"?  Coyotes don‘t learn to fly airlines or pilot speed boats, nor do they blow up warships or bring down towers.

Perhaps the root causes are more important than the acts of violence themselves.

How do you cure a cold?  Cut off someone‘s head?

Get a grip.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (7 May 2004)

Don‘t you cheapen what I said with something as simpleminded as racism. This has nothing to do with it. 

Why did they attack 9/11?

Because they are black guard thugs who lay low in the shadows waiting to ambush! Dirty black thieves of the night.

This is not genocide! We have nothing against the Muslims, Arabs and maybe even Taliban(even they could get over that whole strictness thing). 

Just those dirty friggin terrorists who wish to do us harm.

Get overyourselves and stop thinking in the gutters like that.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (7 May 2004)

Sorry if that sounded like a rant!

Slainte,


----------



## winchable (7 May 2004)

Moral highground, ain‘t it a *****?

Mon Dieu, imagine, if we didn‘t have that we wouldn‘t be able to say "us" and "them"


----------



## 48Highlander (7 May 2004)

"Dirty black thieves of the night"?  God you even sound like a fanatic.

The problems with torturing, raping, and executing prisoners are numerous but let‘s deal with just the main one:  what happens if we‘re wrong?  hypothetical scenario:

20 Iraqi‘s get arrested on suspicion of terrorism.  They‘re beaten and mutilated, and eventually confess to their crimes.  The next day they are executed.

What does that gain us?  Even if only one of the 20 was innocent and confessed under duress, you‘ve now recruited his friends and his family onto your enemies side.

Not to mention the fact that stopping that kind of nonsense is the only currently viable justification for the American invasion of Iraq.

And lastly, if you‘ll recall, Iraqis had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.  So I‘m really not sure what the **** you‘re going on about.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2004)

I think Marauder had an awesome point.

"Last point, whenever Americans are executed, shot or stabbed or raped after capture, burnt beyond recognition once killed, beat all to h$ll for shits and giggles, or have their head cut off on video (Daniel Pearl), none of these atrocities seem to upset any "moderate" arseholes in the Arab/Muslim world."   
What the americans did is brutal but some of the guys over there have acted a million times worse and it‘s a shame that it‘s often so quickly forgotten about in the news.

About the prisoners being abused in the prison, thats one of the stupidest things a soldier can do. For example. A guy gets arrested and thrown in prison. He‘s subjected to all the humiliation, tourture and crap that we‘ve seen in the news. The guy gets out of prison. He‘s not too happy with the US and he doesnt trust them very much. A  american patrol is driving by and stops him. They want to take him in for questionin, what are the chances he‘s going to go along willingly? Whats the chances he;s now going to throw a grenade into the hummer and beetle off?  
How about if an american patrol is driving by and he just happens to be standing next to an RPG 7. Would you pick it up and take a shot at the american patrol? If i was in that guys shoes i‘d do it in a second.  

I wonder how many soldiers that dumbass lindsy england (was that her name?) and the rest of the guys in that prison have killed with their little joke. 

Thats straying a bit from the direction of the thread though sorry


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2004)

Stupid act by a few retards who will hang for it.  Need it go further?  Marauder is right on two counts.

First, Americans are not filling large pits with thousands of Iraqis, so how the h**l do people come off comparing the United States with Hussein‘s regime.  Anyone in the Canadian military knows how unfair it is to get painted with a broad brush for MCpl Matchee‘s acts, so why do the same to the hundreds of thousands of US GI‘s who have performed their duties honourably?

Second, big boy games call for big boy rules.  "Moral highground" my ***.  

I swear some of you would march into Al-Sadr City with a Maple Leaf sticker on your forehead trying to shake hands with every member of the Mahdi Army while giving them a CFPSA backpack, a jar of maple syrup, and a card from some grade 5 student in Kenora, Ontario, declaring victory because you won their "hearts and minds"; oblivious to the fact that your about to get an RPG up the *** from a guy who sees you, McDonalds, and American Idol as the antipathy of his existance.  Good luck.

If you want to think like that, be my guest.  While you do that others will continue to seek victory on OUR terms.


----------



## xFusilier (7 May 2004)

> Grab them by the balls, and their black hearts and medival minds will follow


Anyone want to guess the name of the last guy that had that policy in Iraq?  This is the key point that the coalition needs to absorb - you‘re not as big or as bad as the Muhabarat so you better come up with a better means of convincing people in Iraq to do what you want.

All in all its a great slogan to be put on a T-Shirt and sold on the back pages of Soldier of Fortune Magazine but bears little import to the situation in Iraq today.


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2004)

> All in all its a great slogan to be put on a T-Shirt and sold on the back pages of Soldier of Fortune Magazine but bears little import to the situation in Iraq today.


It is when certain factions decide they want to take over cities and shoot up US forces as they see fit.

I see a lot of criticism of the current course of action here but no solutions being offered up.  Kinda along the lines of:
"Baghdad will be a bloodbath..."
"The vaunted Republican Gaurd has deployed..."
"Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires..."


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

The only thing for sure about Iraq is that it is going to take a long time to turn it into a democracy.

It is worth doing.

And in the 20 to 50 years it is going to take to do it at least one of the 2-300,000 foreigners and 30,000,000 locals is going to do something to upset the rest of us.

This specific incident couldn‘t necessarily have been predicted but something was likely to happen.

The perpetrators need to be punished, as do the people in their chain of command where they issued orders or turned a blind eye.

But unless we and the Americans and the UN figure out how to handle these situations to the satisfaction of ALL concerned, Iraqis and Yanks and Brits and Canucks then we can all forget the high-flown phrases about nation-building and responsibility to protect etc.    And those of you youngsters planning on a career in the military can get used to doing sledge patrols to Alert instead of heading off to Afghanistan and Haiti.


It is not that bad things do or do not happen.  Its how you deal with them.


----------



## xFusilier (7 May 2004)

The only solution is to go and depose the leaders of the various factions in Iraq, that have sprung up as a result of the Coalition allowing the power vacum created by the fall of the Ba‘athist regime to be filled.

Unfortunately this course of action will necessitate the deaths of a number of coalition soldiers.  However, the activities that occured in Falluja are NOT the way you go about dealing with insurgency.  Which is to say "We‘re going to clean out Falluja" and then stop and negotiate which indicates lack of strength and purpose in the minds of the opposition.  As a result Falluja has already been deemed to be a sucess in the eyes of the Ba‘athist resitance after all they have:

a.  Driven US forces to the periphery of the city
b.  Caused the US to depart from their conerstorne policy of "de-Ba‘athification"; and
c.  Forced the US on several occasions to declare "unilateral" ceasfires.

You‘re dealing with a group of peope who you say "they got the **** kicked out of them" will say "we won a phyrric victory", so any intervention to remove the leaders of factions who are opposed to the occupation had best leave no doubt as to who was left controlling things at the end.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

xFusilier

Do we have to depose them all or could we not co-opt some?

Some folks over there probably will only be convinced when they are dead.

But many of the others, like Saddam himself, when backed into a corner could probably be brought on-side.  You just have to hold the knife to his throat and let him know you are quite comfortable with using it. You don‘t have to slip it in.

I believe Moqtada-al-Sadr is in that group.  He is playing for two or three things: fame, power and to stay out of jail. Give him his fame, give him limited power and finesse the fact that he is probably a murderer... he wouldn‘t be the first politician with a suspect past.

Let him have a political party.  Let him keep his militia.  Give them all uniforms, equip them, train them, give them a cap-badge and regimental quiffs, have al-Sadr swear allegiance to an Iraqi government and then hold him personally accountable for their actions.  

If you take a look at many of your affiliated regiments you will find that this is how they got their starts in life, most of the Scots regiments have served many masters in their history. The Coldstreams  and some of the other English regiments were raised in defiance of the King. The Ghurkhas were raised under similar circumstances as were Sikh and Punjabi regiments and more recently tribal Firqats in either Aden or Oman. I can‘t remember which.  It is a method with a proven track record.

The alternative is to kill him, turn him into a martyr not only to all those 17 year olds who currently adore him but also to a bunch of 41 year olds that just want to feed their kids.  

Beware the revenge of the middle-aged....     

And you are right about Fallujah, definitely not the way to go.

I forget where I saw it recently but there was some comment about al-Sadr‘s militiamen starting to run scared in Najaf because they are starting to quietly die.  They no longer walk the streets alone, they no longer wear their "uniforms" of black clothes and bandanas.  Posters have started to appear with a picture of a sword "beware of al-Tulfiqa(???spelling???)" kind of like a shiite version of Excalibur. The finger is currently being pointed at al-Sistani‘s militia, the Badr Brigade (that is in line to get a cap-badge)that agreed to work with the coalition and also that did not oppose the entry of al-Sadr‘s militia.  They seem to be adopting a softer approach. 

Kind of like kicking mud. The mud doesn‘t move and after a couple of kicks there is so much mud stuck to you that you can‘t move either.

An old line from someplace else, "softly, softly chatchee monkey".  Time, patience and a firm goal.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

Just checked, the Firqats were company sized tribal militias employed during the Dhofar campaign in Oman in the 70‘s.

Interestingly the troops they worked with to suppress their fellow muslimns were mercenaries from Baluchistan and Brit advisers

Baluchistan is a country that encompasses the desert region south of Kandahar and Quetta, its people are split between, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan where most of the landmass is - to my understanding this in Taliban country these days.

Baluchis, like the Ghurkhas, the Sikhs and the Punjabis all served in the Indian Army under British Command in Burma and elsewhere despite a cordial dislike for each other.

To pinch a line from a popular song "What‘s love got to do with it...."


----------



## Goober (7 May 2004)

I read all these posts, and I actually was surprised to see some people defend the torture.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (7 May 2004)

I think you read wrong. No one defended the torture. It was wrong. Simply wrong. If things work out, those people will be punished accordingly. I hope. It‘s wrong if the tortured souls were just "Joe lunch box Iraqui" fighting for what he believes is a just cause(freedom, oppression, etc) just as it would be wrong if they were terrorist. You don‘t torture people. It‘s not conducive to good relations with others.

48thHighlander mentioned "And lastly, if you‘ll recall, Iraqis had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. So I‘m really not sure what the **** you‘re going on about."
You are right. As far as I know they had no link to those folks who were responsible for the attacks. But there are many reports that  a rising number of insurgents in Iraq are not even Iraqui. They are foreign nationals who have crossed into Iraq to have a go at the Coalition. The same people that we are fighting in Afghanistan. We are at war with terrorists. I don‘t care where we get them. Iraq seems to be much more than it is. If they keep funneling into there to fight the Coalition and keep dying there so be it. 

And as for the creative and colourful terms I used last night, well I let my desire to be Ernie Pyle get the better of me. I could‘v easily used "bad guys" or "stinky face"


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

> If they keep funneling into there to fight the Coalition and keep dying there so be it.


Not a bad thing. Too bad it has to happen in Joe Iraqi‘s streets while his kids are trying to go to school.


----------



## xFusilier (7 May 2004)

Kirkhill;

I dont think you need to kill the leaders of the insurgency in Iraq, you need to remove them from influencing events within the country.  Ideally be not martyring them.

With reference to the suggestion that the US adopt a course of action similiar to that of the British in India belies two very important differences between then and now:

1.  The British often had more respect for those that resisted them than those that they had subjugated; and

2.  The British were able to rule such a massive empire with a small army because they convinced those peoples that they colonized of the superiority of being British.

Neither of these are the case in Iraq with reference to the Americans.

On a different tangent but on the same topic, I found it very interesting to watch the exchange between Sen. McCain and Rumsfeld.  It was quite obvious that McCain, having been through torture as a POW, was having a great deal of difficulty with this entire issue.  It was enlightening to watch McCain tear Rumsfeld a new one when he tried to give a non-answer.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2004)

I find it hard to believe the president didn‘t know what was going on. Not to start a conspiricy here but i could see rimsfeld taking one for the team and covering for the boss. I mean who hasv‘t covered for a boss in the past? Especially when you know your going to get taken care of for your troubles.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

xFusilier

Your point on respect is well-taken. 

But do you think that part of the case might just be that the Brits had come from more rough-and-tumble existences?

Not thinking so much about the Victorian period, where they essentially consolidated their position and were "self-assuredly" convinced of their superiority, right or wrong (In some respects my forebears gave the impression of being blind to race because they treated all-races equally,  black or white, everybody on the other side of the Channel was equal.  They weren‘t British     ).

No. More the Georgian period when they were establishing position in India and North America.
They were still putting down insurrections in the Borders, the North of England, Scotland and Ireland.  They were used to dealing with "savages in outlandish dress (us Scots)" and had long ago recognized the need to come to accomodations with the people that had the power to establish order.

Democracy didn‘t enter into it. Accomodation backed by the judicious use of force to establish Order, then Good Governance backed by the threat of force to maintain the Peace.

In fact going back to the Victorians, I think a case could be made that many of the times the Army was called out it was in response to some incident derived from somebody trying to "improve" the natives.

The Americans, we Canadians as well for that matter, and much of the current population of the West has had such a long run of peace that the value of pragmatism seems to have been forgotten.

Our children and our politicians have had the luxury of pursuing Idealisms secure from the consequences of confronting others who VIOLENTLY disagree with them.

This streak of Idealism seems to be especially true in the American forces.

Could that not be a deterent to coming to an end-state?


----------



## devil39 (7 May 2004)

For Marauder.  I think Victor Davis Hanson must be reading your posts.


However Hanson, being a Professor of Classics, Military Historian and an intellectual (not that Marauder isn‘t), has wrapped up much of Marauder‘s argument in a larger, but very interesting package.  

Worth the read if you have the time.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200405070832.asp


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 May 2004)

So now they have Videos!!!!
It‘s dark day in Dodge!!!

As to Englund,she deserves what she gets.
She has gone against the Code Of Discipline that she swore to observe and obey.


----------



## xFusilier (8 May 2004)

> But do you think that part of the case might just be that the Brits had come from more rough-and-tumble existences?


Oh most likely, look at the way public schools were run in the day.



> No. More the Georgian period when they were establishing position in India and North America.
> They were still putting down insurrections in the Borders, the North of England, Scotland and Ireland. They were used to dealing with "savages in outlandish dress (us Scots)" and had long ago recognized the need to come to accomodations with the people that had the power to establish order.


I would argue that it was still based on convincing the "savages" about the superiority of being "british" namely the Thin Red Line, the Brown Bess musket and the ability to fire three rounds a minute.   



> Democracy didn‘t enter into it. Accomodation backed by the judicious use of force to establish Order, then Good Governance backed by the threat of force to maintain the Peace


Certainly, and I would argue that the average Iraqi probably doesn‘t care about "democracy" they would be happy with "peace, order, and good government."  In fact I remeber an arguement made in the pre-war period when it was argued in the Guardian or the Independant that the best way to bring this about was by appointing a King.



> This streak of Idealism seems to be especially true in the American forces


Kirkhill you are for more generous than I am, in some cases it has surpassed idealism and manifested into full on jingoism.

Regardless, the only way that Iraqis are going to cooperate with the occupation is if the colation can tangibly demonstrate the improvment of quality of life in Iraq, thus challenging the notions of the leaders in Iraq that the Americans are a hinderence to them realizing there potential.


----------



## smoky (8 May 2004)

I agree the only way Iraquis are going to laydown there arms and say "lets all be friends"  is if the americans and brits can show them a  better life than saddam hussein once did, if they cant do that than its kind of like why and what the **** did you come here??

seeing first hand whats been happeing there since i just got back from the region,
i can only say this,

they are no stranger to torture, hunger, brutalilty, discrimination, and all the other bad things,  SADDAM was not a niceman, 
however  as one iraqi put it to me we would rather be ill treated by someone of our own kind than a foriegner.

torturing is wrong, and i highly doubt bush or rumsfeild ordered it as much as i dislike them both, we have to remember that these were acts of few of the 135 000 soldiers, charge them convict them and lets move on to helping these people that is why we are there no?
being a western/arab and having spent time all over that part of the world and this part i would like to quote an arab leader " arabs are like an unruly camel"
in other words you get on there goodside and your in, bad side and well..... both sides suffer.


SADDAM had nothing to do with 9/11 forien fighters in iraq didnt go there till the US and Britian got there and some Iraqis not all  welcomed them, "my friends enemy is my enemy, my enemy‘s enemy  is my friend", by joining forces with there other arab "mujahedene" from syria,lebanon, jordon,saudi and so on and on
they have done exactly what there own enemy has done
formed a coalition with a common goal.

sorry for spelling and grammar mistakes 
Keyboard isnt working well    and i need some sleep.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2004)

xFusilier

I find myself agreeing with you on all points


Oh well..


----------



## xFusilier (9 May 2004)

Well doesnt that just take all the fun out of arguing.


----------

