American POW's. [Archive]

Northlander

03-25-2003, 07:52 AM

I do care about the iraqis being killed by Saddam, but you are not killing them to save them from Saddam.

You are getting yourself into a region which you cant master in my opinion.

You cant stay after Saddam is gone for all groups in iraq will turn on you if you do and if you dont stay all hell will break lose between clans, ethnic minorities and other groups influenced by the neighbours. The country cant continue to exist in the current form and with these borders without the oppression they have today.

Abit like balkan after Tito. Its no excuse for Saddam being in power but it can mean that the situation will get even worse, which it usually tends to do after american or british involvement anyway.

The thing is that none of us knows what will happen after war but we all know what happens during war. As I see it you are condemning the iraqis to death regardless and your Bush administration knows it.

As you see now not all that many iraqis are welcoming you. The kurds will turn against you when they wont get their own nation which I dont think USA could ever accept. The shiitemuslims in the south will probably install ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Hakim or even let the iranians in if/when they get free elections and I doubt USA will find any of those better than Saddam. Then you will have to deal with them.

Im convinced you are killing iraqis in vain. They and millions of other muslims will not forget that. Nor will others like me.
Give support if you like but war wont help the region.

Mercury

03-25-2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Kapiti

Is there a human right to be allowed to live without having some other country decide that you need to be bombed into submission.

Kapiti, I have a question for you. After loosing the war in 1991 Iraq signed an obligation (among others) to compensate victims of its aggresion (Kuweit, Israel, Saudi Arabia). How do you suggest that Iraq should be made to honour this obligation? Or do you think that Israel doesn't deserve one, since it's itself is aggressor/racist/monster/...? What about Kuweit?

tandem

03-25-2003, 11:02 AM

>>>'When 77 CIVILIANS are killed in Basrah you just say "collateral damage" or as you put it "war zones are what they are".'<<<

from all the reports i read, most of the civilian deaths in basra are attributed to iraqi troops loyal to saddam using civilians as human shields. apparently the shiia locals have had enough of this and are now revolting against saddam's troops in the area

Mediocrates

03-25-2003, 11:40 AM

Don't worry tandem this is the same mindset that calls IDF operations picking through terrorist houses room by room a warcrime and blowing up busloads of children the inevitable outpouring of frustration of downtrodden people or some such snot.

Mediocrates

03-25-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Kapiti
War is a terrible thing and if you cannot handle your own combatants being killed then don't support the start of it.

Today in Baghdad is 2500 degrees and raining fire. If yoiu don't like the weather, move.

I am not pro-Saddam so I don't take offence at your closing remarks but does it not seem ironic that America would have a military expenditure at least 16 times greater than Iraq can put together.

I'm not sure you know what the word ironic means. I would call it the inevitable outpouring of a frustrated people. Or, It just sux to be you.

Is there a human right to be allowed to live without having some other country decide that you need to be bombed into submission.

Stick to the facts and leave the bloody shirts at home. Or, if you have to bleed for everyone then grow a heart for dead Israelis.

NewsGuy

03-25-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Northlander
You are getting yourself into a region which you cant master in my opinion.

This is really a point of misunderstanding among many Leftists. The U.S. does not want to master Iraq nor any other nation. We are simply eliminating a threat to the region and to ourselves. And hopefully, this will be a first step in eliminating other Arab and Islamic terrorist dictators.

Communication

03-25-2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
This is really a point of misunderstanding among many Leftists. The U.S. does not want to master Iraq nor any other nation. We are simply eliminating a threat to the region and to ourselves. And hopefully, this will be a first step in eliminating other Arab and Islamic terrorist dictators.

I think he meant that we are getting ourselves involved in a battle that we can't master. None of these soldiers have seen the type of battles that they will encounter in Baghdad. It's going to get very ugly and the world is counting the number of civilian casualties. It might turn into another Jenin, only on a much larger scale.

Anyway, I think that's what he meant.

Mediocrates

03-25-2003, 03:01 PM

I am a leftist. I feel real bad for people living in countries I might want to vacation in some day.

Northlander

03-26-2003, 08:04 AM

Im not really leftist. Also I imagine we might have somewhat different views on what leftist is. But its another disscussion I guess. People can hardly be devided only into left/right when it comes to the opinions of this war.

I didnt mean you couldnt master the situation militarely. I am sure pentagon are aware of the threats in Baghdad and the risks with urban warfare. What I meant was that USA will not master the changing of regimes and the democratization of iraq OR the ME in general. A military victory might prove to mean nothing.I cant really see how it would work and what the plan is. There are great risks that things will turn out really bad. Especially for people in ME but also for us in west.

Mediocrates

03-26-2003, 08:54 AM

I'm sorry, I wasn't directing that at you personally, it was just a general sense I get. Like animal rights activists who get wet for baby seals but don't care about ugly slimy insectoid creatures.

Johnny Yuma

03-29-2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
This is really a point of misunderstanding among many Leftists. The U.S. does not want to master Iraq nor any other nation. We are simply eliminating a threat to the region and to ourselves. And hopefully, this will be a first step in eliminating other Arab and Islamic terrorist dictators.

Well said! It seems a simple concept to understand. The Iraqis don't have anything that citizens of the United States can't already buy; oil, specifically. We buy it from all over the world.

It's the self-loathing bystanders that are projecting themselves and their own greedy modus operandi into this region. All Americans want is to be secure in our homes.

Johnny Yuma

03-29-2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Northlander
What I meant was that USA will not master the changing of regimes and the democratization of iraq OR the ME in general.
Unadulterated speculation. Not a speck of cereal! You can't possibly know that. You said it yourself:
I cant really see how it would work and what the plan is.

JustPat

03-29-2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by michael
"Ok the fact it's against the Geneva convention to parade prisoners"

True. But it's funny the complete lack of reaction to the very same thing happening in the preceding days- the POW was Iraqi and the photos appeared in newspapers all over the world.

I'm sure you know the photo - Iraqi POW, handcuffed, kneeling, hand on his head, being poured a drink with a gun pointing at him.

Must be different somehow.
One major difference would be that he was being pured a drink instead of being shot in the head for all the world to see. Is that a big enough difference for you? Where is your compassion when it is your buddies meting out the barbarism?

JustPat

03-29-2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Northlander
Im not really leftist. Also I imagine we might have somewhat different views on what leftist is. But its another disscussion I guess. People can hardly be devided only into left/right when it comes to the opinions of this war.

I didnt mean you couldnt master the situation militarely. I am sure pentagon are aware of the threats in Baghdad and the risks with urban warfare. What I meant was that USA will not master the changing of regimes and the democratization of iraq OR the ME in general. A military victory might prove to mean nothing.I cant really see how it would work and what the plan is. There are great risks that things will turn out really bad. Especially for people in ME but also for us in west.
Attention everyone, Northlander is not qualified to administer the rebuilding of Iraq. :D

Northlander

03-31-2003, 12:49 AM

My god, you are childish. Its doesnt matter if you are or are not capable of changing the region. It is about none of us knowing if you are and therefore alot of people are against it. The other point is that it is not your business even if you are capable and because of that others are against it.

You guys are positive to the war with the same knowledge. Seems to me you just want war regardless of logic. You cant know if it all make you more secure. Nevertheless you think the war is great. You cant know the amount of dead iraqis in the end, still you think they benefit from a war.

In the end we might end up with total chaos in the region. A load of dead americans and iraqis. An ever increase of terrorist attacks on USA and elsewhere and a whole lot of countries going to war regardless of UN all over the place. IF that happens you would still claim this war was a great idea which makes me belive that it is indeed you that have a static reasoning and just support this because of...? Well, what is it? Is it nationalism? Because you want to see americans in action on TV? What is it really? I dont think you have ever laid sleepless over the crimes commited by Saddam on his people. Is that it?

About your POWs. Dont give me that "they are innocent" BS.
If someone drags you down to the conscription center and forces you to sign up, resist. If someone ties you up and send you on a very long journey to a place where other folks live in the desert. Please resist. Its really simple. If you dont like being in war and if it is no fun being killed or tortured in the desert. Dont go there. Its you choice.

After seeing the dead children after the US bomb on the market in Baghdad a few days ago, I really hope the pilot gets downed. Im sure he will not regret what he has done until the iraqis gets their hands on him. I absolutely wish him a living hell.

christian

03-31-2003, 02:39 AM

It is good to know, the european finally awakes the US hidden agenda. Reading this website from Bush family is like the Nazi magnifesto, getting rid of arabs like the jews, Final solution, Unipolar world, pre-emptive strike,

www.newamericancentury.org

The media in US and UK are completely block out. The exact death in the coalition is 700.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_222566,00050004.htm

elke

03-31-2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by christian
[QUOTE]It is good to know, the european finally awakes the US hidden agenda. Reading this website from Bush family is like the Nazi magnifesto, getting rid of arabs like the jews, Final solution, Unipolar world, pre-emptive strike,

www.newamericancentury.org

Perhaps, better English skills are in order? "Final solution", my foot! :rolleyes:

The media in US and UK are completely block out. The exact death in the coalition is 700.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_222566,00050004.htm

Oh, yes: I will take the word of Iraqi pseudo-leadership over that of the Coalition commanders! :rolleyes:

That'll be the day!

michael

03-31-2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by JustPat
One major difference would be that he was being pured a drink instead of being shot in the head for all the world to see.

Donald Rumsfield pointed out that public display of POWs is illegal. Doesn't matter if you're shooting them or giving them a foot massage - it's illegal.

I was just impressed by the discipline of the media not to be outraged by this flouting of the law, that is until given the go ahead by Rumsfield.

It is most reassuring to have a free and independent media acting as a watchdog for our freedoms.

Mediocrates

03-31-2003, 06:36 AM

christian why would Iraq's ambassador to Russia know more about it than anyone else?

I remember the Viet Nam era evening news reports with absurd body counts - something like 10:1 or 20:1 casualty ratios. This is like that. The only way sometimes to make an overwhelming enemy less frightening is to simply say it out loud.

christian

03-31-2003, 06:38 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
Perhaps, better English skills are in order? "Final solution", my foot! :rolleyes:

Dick cheney, Jeb Bush, Rumsfled write an article in 1998 in PNAC, invading iraq to promote middle east stability. "Final solution", my foot.

Oh, yes: I will take the word of Iraqi pseudo-leadership over that of the Coalition commanders! :rolleyes:

That'll be the day!

Anyway, I say Iraqi is doing a great, killing the invaders. Who is much powerful than the iraqi laughable armor. They are very heroic in my mind.

Good job. Fight the zionist. Don't tell me, the American jews are not supporting this iraqi war. (perle-wolfwitz-feith-AIPAC )
Moreover, they control the media.
(Sumner Redstone,Micheal Eisner, Norm Pearlstein, Andy Lack...)

Kind of strange, they have a common voice. Are they?
No wonder, al-jarazeez news is much more accurate.

Talk about Geneva convention and holocaust.

http://www.strike-free.org/ge/ds/chronicle/news25.htm

Are you going to lecture me about anti-semitism? I don't hate jews. I just don't like the US zionist agenda. My grandmother is a jew.

Mediocrates

03-31-2003, 06:45 AM

OK that was pretty crazy - we're back to 'it's all the Jews' fault"

you now officially have zero credibility.

Northlander

03-31-2003, 06:48 AM

ok elke maybe the iraqi regimes reports on casulaties are not accurate but why would you belive the allied commanders?

Seriously? Dont you think they twist the truth too?

Eventually we will recieve accurate numbers Im sure but probably after the war.
I would guess its somewhere inbetween the two sides reports.

JustPat

03-31-2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
My god, you are childish. Its doesnt matter if you are or are not capable of changing the region. It is about none of us knowing if you are and therefore alot of people are against it. The other point is that it is not your business even if you are capable and because of that others are against it.
Childish? All I did was bring to light your confession. Remember this:
Originally posted by Northlander
I cant really see how it would work and what the plan is.

Originally posted by Northlander
You guys are positive to the war with the same knowledge. Seems to me you just want war regardless of logic. You cant know if it all make you more secure. Nevertheless you think the war is great. You cant know the amount of dead iraqis in the end, still you think they benefit from a war. In the end we might end up with total chaos in the region. A load of dead americans and iraqis. An ever increase of terrorist attacks on USA and elsewhere and a whole lot of countries going to war regardless of UN all over the place.
You're right, we don't know the final outcome by daring to change the current regime., but we do know what will happen if we don't. I'd much rather they had taken the same chance on deposing Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the many other dictators who have massacred their people. Finally, leadership has taken center stage.

Originally posted by Northlander
About your POWs. Dont give me that "they are innocent" BS. If someone drags you down to the conscription center and forces you to sign up, resist. If someone ties you up and send you on a very long journey to a place where other folks live in the desert. Please resist. Its really simple. If you dont like being in war and if it is no fun being killed or tortured in the desert. Dont go there. Its you choice.
FYI, The US uses an all volunteer force. We do not draft, conscript, or coerce our troops into service. You're right again (twice in one post, I'm so proud of you!) What is criminal is that Iraq demands the protection of the Geneva Convention while refusing to comply with it themselves. The trials should be interesting, if there are any of the criminals left alive to stand trial.

Originally posted by Northlander
After seeing the dead children after the US bomb on the market in Baghdad a few days ago, I really hope the pilot gets downed. Im sure he will not regret what he has done until the iraqis gets their hands on him. I absolutely wish him a living hell.
In case you haven't noticed, hd that been a US bomb they would have been picking pieces out of a very large hole in the ground. The more likely case is that this is the product of Iraqi AAA falling back to earth.

Mediocrates

03-31-2003, 10:53 AM

An 81mm mortar has a 50% kill radius of 150 meters for example. A 150mm high explosive tank round would have an even larger kill radius. I recall an Israeli pizzeria being levelled with only a few pounds of Semtex. For comparison's sake, of course.

I blew 400 lb tree stumps out of the ground using less than a dozen feet of detcord.

JustPat

03-31-2003, 11:48 AM

Oh for the good ole days when TNT was available at the local hardware store. :)

Northlander

03-31-2003, 11:49 PM

I know they are volunteers Justpat. Thats the point.

What could also be said about the geneva convention is that USA first breaks it by filming prisoners on guantanamo and also in Iraq and then complains when the iraqis does the same. This US administration has zero credability when it comes to international laws and conventions.

Its pathetic to first see an invasion and then hear the invaders crying about the enemy not following rules. Did the vietnamese or the afghans defend their independence by holding hands and singing songs?

elke

04-01-2003, 02:40 AM

I believe the Coalition commanders because they have to notify the families. As they do so, there are people watching, both the "unimbedded reporters", with views a la Peter Arnette, and "regular Joes" as well. The Coalition commanders have also established a much better credibility, you might agree, than the Iraqi regime that believes it "won" the first Gulf war.

As far as the Geneva Convention goes: just as in any laws, some are more important than others. Showing prisoners on TV is one thing, executing, torturing, and dismembering them is a completely different story. Yesterday, IRC has had a chance to visit the Iraqi POWs in Coalition's hands. Whatever their report, this is in stark contrast with the "negotiations" they are having in attempting to visit the American POW's in Iraqi hands. It's technically no more difficult for the Iraqis to organize such visits than it is for the Coalition, so why the delay?

JustPat

04-01-2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by elke
I believe the Coalition commanders because they have to notify the families. As they do so, there are people watching, both the "unimbedded reporters", with views a la Peter Arnette, and "regular Joes" as well. The Coalition commanders have also established a much better credibility, you might agree, than the Iraqi regime that believes it "won" the first Gulf war.
As I watch the war coverage I am amazed at what is broadcast. With people like Geraldo Rivera imbedded, I am certain that the level of integrity of the reports by the Coalition Central Command and the Pentagon is held to a higher standard of integrity. This is like nothing in my lifetime. These journalists are not only actually there, they come under the same fire as the troops they cover. I see both Coalition journalists and those of the Arab press imbedded. It would be difficult, from my own experience, to have these reporters along and be able to lie to the world. Al Jazeera's reporters are no longer imbedded with their unit. Against the advice of the commanders they decided to get more personal, bad decision. They were "detained" by the Iraqis and held for ten days. Only after being liberated by Coalition troops were they able to go home. Not only were they detained, but according to they testimony they were held in locations that were bombing targets, one suspects that they were being used as human shields. Do you think there will be any pro-Coalition coverage in al Jazeera as a result? Doubtful.

Originally posted by elke
As far as the Geneva Convention goes: just as in any laws, some are more important than others. Showing prisoners on TV is one thing, executing, torturing, and dismembering them is a completely different story. Yesterday, IRC has had a chance to visit the Iraqi POWs in Coalition's hands. Whatever their report, this is in stark contrast with the "negotiations" they are having in attempting to visit the American POW's in Iraqi hands. It's technically no more difficult for the Iraqis to organize such visits than it is for the Coalition, so why the delay?
To cite the specifics:
Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
Full text: http://www.icrc.org

Unfortunately, some of the language is ambiguous and thus what is considered an "outrage to personal dignity" in one culture may not be in another. The lawyers will never be out of work.

AS to the visits, with such a large TO, it is likely difficult at this point to get the ICRC to locations where POWs are being held and guarantee their safety. Once these POWs are consolidated to a detainment facility the process should accelerate.

localbrew

04-01-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Communication
I think he meant that we are getting ourselves involved in a battle that we can't master. None of these soldiers have seen the type of battles that they will encounter in Baghdad. It's going to get very ugly and the world is counting the number of civilian casualties. It might turn into another Jenin, only on a much larger scale.

Anyway, I think that's what he meant.

At the end of this war the whole world will see that more Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi’s than by coalition collateral damage. That is the bottom line in the big picture.

Great news! US Special Ops rescued a POW today. PFC Jessica Lynch, 19 years old.

Alfred

04-01-2003, 09:04 PM

Being a former military man....

I used to chuckle at the Swedes who would condem the US for moving to the "lethal and inhumane" 5.56 military bullet.

This was especially funny as everyone knew that the Swede 7.62 round was much more deadly than the US version.....as it had a thin metal jacket and tended to twist and turn within the body of the person who was shot. The US and Brit version tended to go right through the body without doing the "inhumane" thing.

The German 7.62 round was almost as deadly as the Swedish round.

JustPat

04-01-2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Alfred
Being a former military man....

I used to chuckle at the Swedes who would condem the US for moving to the "lethal and inhumane" 5.56 military bullet.

This was especially funny as everyone knew that the Swede 7.62 round was much more deadly than the US version.....as it had a thin metal jacket and tended to twist and turn within the body of the person who was shot. The US and Brit version tended to go right through the body without doing the "inhumane" thing.

The German 7.62 round was almost as deadly as the Swedish round.
I have used the Swedes 7.62 and let me tell you it is a killer. You can put one in a groundhog at 200 yards and it will literally scramble the guts and never come out.

mimil

04-01-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by JustPat
I have used the Swedes 7.62 and let me tell you it is a killer. You can put one in a groundhog at 200 yards and it will literally scramble the guts and never come out.

The ratio of the time elapsed since I last heard about the US using such weapons over the time elapsed since I last heard the Swedish using such weapon has to be close to a million.

Northlander

04-02-2003, 12:57 AM

True Mimil. And Im very happy about that too. Im sure the americans here however will use that as some kine of arguement too.

Since I have killed neither groundhogs nor farmers with either 7.62 or 5.56 caliber Im sure I have zero credability when it comes to war in general.

Today the standard assaultrifle in the Swedish Army has 5.56 cal ammo not 7.62 just to get it right.

JustPat

04-02-2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
True Mimil. And Im very happy about that too. Im sure the americans here however will use that as some kine of arguement too.

Since I have killed neither groundhogs nor farmers with either 7.62 or 5.56 caliber Im sure I have zero credability when it comes to war in general.

Today the standard assaultrifle in the Swedish Army has 5.56 cal ammo not 7.62 just to get it right.
And the US uses a .223, as long as it does the job, who cares. Be it a .308, 30-06, 6.5-55, or .303, guns used in military operations were designed to kill people in the most efficient way possible. This is war gentlemen, not high tea.

Northlander

04-02-2003, 01:53 AM

To that I agree.

Since we wont agree on anything political lets keep it on military for a while. Regardless of opinions we all want to know whats going on I guess.

Does anyone have any idea where the iraqi airforce are? I mean we havent seen any reports from the allies on numbers of destroyed iraqi aircrafts and prior to the war started iraq were supposed to have some planes. They did enter the no-fly zones from time to time and no planes were shot down under those encounters. So where are they?

Also where are the SAMs? They have barely used it since the war started and they sure have them. Now they seem to just use AA guns but no SAMs over Baghdad.

JustPat

04-02-2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
Does anyone have any idea where the iraqi airforce are? I mean we havent seen any reports from the allies on numbers of destroyed iraqi aircrafts and prior to the war started iraq were supposed to have some planes. They did enter the no-fly zones from time to time and no planes were shot down under those encounters. So where are they?
I hear they have been grounded with a severe case of lead poisoning.

Originally posted by Northlander
Also where are the SAMs? They have barely used it since the war started and they sure have them. Now they seem to just use AA guns but no SAMs over Baghdad.
SAMs have been used extensively and almost exclusively over Bagdad. Due to Coalition target identification the Iraqis have been shy about turning on their fire control radar, a must for the SAMs they possess.

I am not sure but what Saddam isn't playing the sly fox and luring the Coalition into a trap in Bagdad. We shall see what happens when things get desperate.

Northlander

04-02-2003, 04:49 AM

Im not so sure over the aircraft thing though. Numbers vary but according to different analysts prior to the war the iraqi number of planes should be around 50 - 100 fully operational aircrafts.

The attack didnt come as a surprise to them to say the least so I doubt they did let the few planes they have stand fueled on the runways of their airports waiting to be destroyed.

Wooden planes as decoys as in Yugoslavia is more probable.
Im still not convinced they have lost all their planes in ground attacks. Doesnt make sense.

My guess is that they can still do something with them if used in surprise.

Same goes for the SAMs. They are supposed to have plenty of sites even according to the US military. Probably much much better hidden this time than during the gulfwar. Same as in Yugoslavia again. The serbs were quite good in hiding their stuff. I agree the iraqis are careful about using them but still what I have heard the usage over Baghdad doesnt stand in proportion to what it could be.

SAMs are far more effective obviously than regular AA fire against your planes and is it possible that they are indeed trying to lure the US airforce into beliving that the sky is clear.

Its easy to imagine that a vertible wall of surface to air missiles against one particular US airstrike together with at least a few fighters would be far more effective than risking losing them one after the other.

Im not sure what AA capability the marine units have up at the front. Patriots etc? You should know I guess?
They have decent planes and they should be able to do some damage against US infantry if they enter the stage now. One hit blow probably since they will be attacked and tracked constantly and instantly when they are revealed but nevertheless. Could be a nasty surprise.

peacelover

04-02-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by localbrew
Great news! US Special Ops rescued a POW today. PFC Jessica Lynch, 19 years old.

This is fantastic news, I wish a speedy recovery to Jessica. What an ordeal - to be ambushed, see your comrades killed, have both your legs broken and to be shot several times, all at 19...

Northlander, does a 19 year old girl who signed up because she was unemployed have no cause to complain about that treatment? Just because she was there voluntarily?

Don't get me wrong, I cry for the innocent Iraqi dead and injured as much as I cry for our boys over there. I think what people here need to realise is you don't have to choose - loss of human life is loss of human life. After all, that's what we should be mourning, not specifically American/Iraqi/British/Jewish life etc etc.

Northlander

04-02-2003, 11:58 PM

There is something wrong with the system if someone unemployed in americahas to risk dying in the desert just to make a decent living. Dont you agree?

I dont think she should complain no. She should learn and the next time uncle Sam asks for her services she should stay home.
It is about choice. Its always about choice. She had nothing in Iraq to do and that is it. In a better world she could have come there in peace but she didnt. Its maybe easier to to feel sympathetic for a 19 year old girl than many other soldiers but it doesnt change the principle.

Should the iraqis not have fired at her because she maybe would have done something else for a living had she been able to choose? What does it matter to them? She is a part of the machine that kills their own 19 year old girls and thats about it.
Besides. Wasnt she rescued from a hospital? They did threat her from her injuries didnt they?

It doesnt matter peacelover if you cry about dead Iraqis because no one of you americans/brits seem to be able to prevent things like this. The peacemovement in america is weak and pathetic. The rest of you more or less accept war. The real will to change this worldorder is not there. And regardless of how you feel about it your nation is responsible for alot of grief in the world today. So you can talk about human values and this and that how much you like. The reality is that all humans are not equal in this world today. All this fuzz about an american soldier that is not even dead in the middle of this very brutal conflict. Its pathetic to say the least.

Ask yourself how many "illegal combatants" your own armies have taken this time. We wont know how they are treated because they will be isolated for any amount of time for crimes unknown.

cerulean

04-03-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
Wasnt she rescued from a hospital? They did threat her from her injuries didnt they?

I've read all of the following:
There was a torture device next to her bed, and she was tortured.
She was fed little to nothing for eight days.
She had gunshot wounds, was stabbed, had two broken legs, and a broken arm. (Some of these could be combat wounds, others sound like torture injuries.)

On the plus side, an Iraqi woman slipped a note to a US marine that the girl was being held. An Iraqi pharmacist claims to have helped her in the hospital.

Northlander

04-03-2003, 03:59 AM

War is hell dont you think? Better not start new ones in the future.

Northlander

04-03-2003, 04:10 AM

BTW. You know nothing about whether its true that the iraqis tortured her. This is what happens with reporters that are not embedded. It looks to me that US army doesnt want people to know whats going on.

http://www.arabnews.com:/Article.asp?ID=24644

"Their ordeal at the hands of the Americans is in stark contrast to that received by Newsday journalists in Baghdad, who yesterday in Jordan described as “humane” their treatment at the hands of their Iraqi interrogators despite suffering various indignities. “I have covered 10 wars in the past six years — in Angola, Afghanistan, Zaire, and East Timor. I have been arrested three times in Africa, but have never been subjected to such treatment or been physically beaten before,” Castro said in an exclusive interview with Arab News.

“The Americans call themselves liberators and freedom fighters, but look what they have done to us,” he added.

Mediocrates

04-03-2003, 07:04 AM

It's all a lie North. All of it. In fact there is no Saddam Hussein, we made him up. We're not even sure if we're in Iraq or not. And if we are there isn't even an Iraqi army. There are no embedded reporters, those are all plants and fakes. There are no smart bombs. Our plan is to enslave all the Iraqis we can't exterminate.

Didn't you get the memo?

JustPat

04-03-2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
Ask yourself how many "illegal combatants" your own armies have taken this time. We wont know how they are treated because they will be isolated for any amount of time for crimes unknown.
You keep saying this, but it has no basis in fact. The International Red Cross has full access to these detainees (read: prisoners who were guilty of shooting at our troops.) The are held in compliance with the international laws of warfare and many have been sent home. Which of those held by Iraq have been afforded even the first visit by the Red Cross. As the details come out about this 19 yr old private, Iraq's treatment of its prisoners becomes even more heinous. Why do you insisit on defending such a regime?

JustPat

04-03-2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
BTW. You know nothing about whether its true that the iraqis tortured her. This is what happens with reporters that are not embedded. It looks to me that US army doesnt want people to know whats going on.

http://www.arabnews.com:/Article.asp?ID=24644

"Their ordeal at the hands of the Americans is in stark contrast to that received by Newsday journalists in Baghdad, who yesterday in Jordan described as “humane” their treatment at the hands of their Iraqi interrogators despite suffering various indignities. “I have covered 10 wars in the past six years — in Angola, Afghanistan, Zaire, and East Timor. I have been arrested three times in Africa, but have never been subjected to such treatment or been physically beaten before,” Castro said in an exclusive interview with Arab News.

“The Americans call themselves liberators and freedom fighters, but look what they have done to us,” he added.
Nice try! But having satellite news feeds it is difficult to hide the truth. These very same "victims of American aggression" reported that though they were not harmed, they could hear their captors torturing others in the prison. Who were they torturing? Why? How can you defend them? Your compassion overwhelms me.

Northlander

04-03-2003, 07:42 AM

Im not defending them. And my words means nothing. What do mean something is your country´s support and money that goes to Turkish torture and S.Arabian. Why not even Israeli?

Mediocrates

04-03-2003, 08:24 AM

ummmm dunno. maybe the world isn't platonic absolutes.

minusthejihad

04-03-2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
BTW. You know nothing about whether its true that the iraqis tortured her. This is what happens with reporters that are not embedded. It looks to me that US army doesnt want people to know whats going on.

http://www.arabnews.com:/Article.asp?ID=24644

"Their ordeal at the hands of the Americans is in stark contrast to that received by Newsday journalists in Baghdad, who yesterday in Jordan described as “humane” their treatment at the hands of their Iraqi interrogators despite suffering various indignities. “I have covered 10 wars in the past six years — in Angola, Afghanistan, Zaire, and East Timor. I have been arrested three times in Africa, but have never been subjected to such treatment or been physically beaten before,” Castro said in an exclusive interview with Arab News.

“The Americans call themselves liberators and freedom fighters, but look what they have done to us,” he added.

They looked fine to me, unlike the girl on the stretcher. But lets not compete in who was more injured and let's remember that that 19 year old girl could take more abuse than a pathetic sniveling wimp like you. FOr someone who talks so much sh!t, you sure are a p****!