3/30/2003: US soldier carries injured Iraqi soldier

[russotto]

The sad thing is that they're depending on the USs relative decency in order to commit these acts. The ideas of certain actions as war crimes didn't come about for any noble purpose -- it started as pure tit-for-tat self-interest.

You don't execute POWs because you don't want the other side to execute YOUR POWs; after all, you want those people back after the war, to fight the next one or perhaps to do heavy lifting in civilian fields.

You don't disguise your troops as civilians because you don't want to give the other side reason to slaughter your real civilians.

You don't fake surrenders because in doing so you invite the enemy not to accept your surrender, should the war go badly.

The Iraqi leaders know the US won't respond to POW executions by executing Iraqi POWs. They know the US won't start slaughtering their civilians (and they probably wouldn't care much if we did). And they'd probably love it if the US stopped accepting surrenders, because it would force their own regulars to fight to the last man.

[hscohen]

The Chinese-Russian Coalition invades your part of the USA, with bombers, tanks, cruise missiles,... the whole conventional shebang,... in overwhelming numbers.
Your neighbor, who owns a gun and knows how to use it, sees an enemy soldier sneaking across his back yard and shoots him in the leg.
Now, honestly, what do you think your neighbor is going to do next?
a) leave the soldier alone, and risk calling unpleasant attention to the area?
b) stash the soldier in the basement, and give him scarce food and medicine?
c) stash the soldier in the basement, but don't give him scarce food and medicine?
d) shoot the soldier in the forehead at close range?

And by the way, is your neighbor wearing a regulation military uniform and name tag, per the Geneva Conventions?

Lots of Iraqi soldiers are scum who oppress their own people. Maybe these guys even cheered when a bunch of Saudis took down the WTC. But it's worth remembering that our soldiers are FOREIGN INVADERS. Why should we expect the Iraqi's to be any nicer than your neighbor?

[slang]

Originally posted by hscohen
Why should we expect the Iraqi's to be any nicer than your neighbor?

Because we come bearing gifts of candy bars, MREs and cool stuff that amazes their children.

We should also remember that even our soldiers treat the Iraqis better than their "leaders" in most cases.

But seriously, point taken. I can only imagine what a fustercluck it is over there.

[warch]

Its the hearts and minds campaign. Looks like a tough sell, but for everyone's sake, I hope it works.

[Torrere]

I am amazed at the differences between the equipment of the American soldier and the Iraqi soldier. I really hope that they stripped the Iraqi soldier down before the picture, and that wasn't how we was supposed to be all the time.

No shoe!

[xoxoxoBruce]

You don't need shoes when you live on a beach.

[Bitmap]

Note the Healthy glow around the Soldiers, I don't mind that this was edited though, because its Content is the same It looks like all the Photoshoping did was change the back ground. Wich could be understandable considering what could be back there. There could be a bunch of dead and bloody soldiers, or a city sky line that will give away the location of those troops, lots of things.
In the end it is still just a photo of a Soldier carring a wounded enemy soldier. Wich i think is proof positive that we are not there with compleatly melificent intentions.

[Torrere]

Some of our soldiers are good kind folk. That's what the picture displays.

It says nothing about the possibly maleficient intentions of the Administration.

(edit: grammatical error)

[quzah]

Originally posted by hscohen
But it's worth remembering that our soldiers are FOREIGN INVADERS. Why should we expect the Iraqi's to be any nicer than your neighbor?

This is exactly what runs through my head when seeing the absurdity called news. Can you picture the scenario being reversed?
[scenario]
The rest of the world has bigger guns than us. The rest of the world decides they don't like us to have big guns. The rest of the world tells the US to get rid of their government, disarm, and allow the rest of the world to decide what our new form of governemnt is. (Subsequently, the rest of the world will then plunder our natural resources, and call it 'revitalizing the economy' or some shit. But that's a seperate topic for a seperate thread.)
[/scenario]
Now what the hell do you think the US is going to do? Do you really believe the US would just willingly punt the Pres, the Congress, the Senate just because the rest of the world told us to? Hell no.

How about the "good old boys" up in the hills? You think they're going to sit by while troops drive up and down the roads in trucks and tanks? Hell no.

No one* is just going to sit there and watch their country be taken over just because some one else decides we're bad for no apparent reason.**

It's absurd for us and "our media" to pose stupid questions like: "Why would they disguise themselves as civillians?" "Why would they attack under guise of surrender?" "How on earth..."

It's just stupid. As to the other poster who stated the reason you don't do this and that is because you hope to get your army back...

Get rea! Do you really think we're going to give them their army back? Do you really think that after the war we're just going to let them do whatever they want?

Consider: You are a 'good old boy', you're doing your 'patriotic duity', you join the military. No, not every single soldier is some wacked out extremest. I really really doubt that. Anyway, as such, you're ordered to go hold this, go take that, go do whatever.

You know you're going to get slaughtered. You're vastly outgunned. Still, you're not about to hand your country over to a bunch of invaders. What do you do? Play nice? Fuck no.


*There is an exception to every rule.

**Iraq has done what exactly over the last decade? Oh that's right, not a fucking thing. Some threat. Side note, see North Korea. Some how they aren't worthy of invasion because why... Oh yeah, they have no OIL. They openly proclaim they have nuke potential. But then, who wants rice fields, right? Where's the money in that? IIRC, I believe I saw an estimated 120 trillion in oil sitting in Iraq.

No, no motivation there. It's because they're so evil that we're 'saving the world from them'.

Quzah.

[Uryoces]

The reason why the rest of the world doesn't invade us is partly due to you, quzah [and partly due to the hillbillies and aircraft carriers]. I myself am not sure what I can add to a conversation that would not make the rest of the world hate us, other than "Could I please have some more hummus and pita, and another cup of Turkish coffee". Any viewpoint has it's supporters here in the good old US of A. That's the part I'm proud of, that's the part I don't really see elsewhere in the world.

Any one single leader can fuck up only so far in secret. We have people like Noam Chomsky -- whom I'm not it agreement with in every point he makes. Amnesty International believes, and rightly so, that casting light on wrong doings makes leaders very nervous, and not likely to repeat. You're no Chomsky; that last post was very emotional, a bit simplistic, and revealed nothing really new, but you add to the voice.

That being said, I really, really do like the idea of dropping concrete on Iraqi tanks from 10,000 feet! YEE-HAW! *Blam, blam, blam*

[Torrere]

Maybe we will develop 'smart blocks' of concrete that have computer guided accuracy, so that our concrete blocks aren't wasted on splashing sand.

[Uryoces]

Maybe we will develop 'smart blocks' of concrete that have computer guided accuracy, so that our concrete blocks aren't wasted on splashing sand.

They are msart blocks! From what I understand, the only thing different between the concrete bombs and a smart bomb is the concrete. It's a streamlined, bomb-shaped concrete tube with guidance fins fore and aft, and the electronics in the nose.

[arz]

Yes, they are essentially the BDU (bomb dummy unit) version of a bomb body with a guidance kit on it. The result a steerable concrete bomb. By the way, there are quite a few of these guidance kits nowadays - I saw some for 500 pound Mk 82s the other day.

The problem is that even smart weapons have a miss distance (a CEP - circular error probable) and with a non-blast/non-frag/non-penetration version of the weapon if it missed even by an inch it misses completely. Not to say that this is an ineffective method but it harkens back to multiple bomb runs to attack a target a la WWII.

I read at another discussion board about a mission late last week wherein one of these weapons was deployed against a MiG parked in a schoolyard. It seemed very unlikely to me given the "facts" that were included in the story (nevermind how a Mig was in a schoolyard to begin with), but others were quick to say that these bombs were there and were being used.

[BrianR]

The MiG was obviously there as a training aid to the ttech school...teaching aspiring airplane mechanics to work on aircraft!

They must start em young over there tho.

:p

Brian

[wolf]

I'll bet the kid who spent ALL YEAR picking up parts from the desert and reassembling that thing was PISSED when his final project got creamed.