Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: deSelys on April 15, 2004, 03:50:26 AM
-
When some (and I said 'some', I don't think this is a majority) act like this:
Film (http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfakt/clips/sick/DontLoot.wmv)
Even if those guys were looters, this way of handling it is totally unprofessional.
-
That will theach the Ragheads not to loot WOOD!
Ya Ya, La Onda For life!!
:rolleyes:
Sheesh, The US really need to stop sending their gang members to Iraq...
Maybe the Iraq war was a "Fidel Castro" tactic, send the misfits to Iraq, the prisons are getting crowded kind of deal...
Pathetic.
-
Anyone has that film where US troops shot dead already wounded Iraqi and afterwards were telling to camera how cool that was ?
-
Those troopers are frustrated, pure and simple...
-
I bet the owners of that car must be a bit frustrated too after this show...
-
I hope those guys got punished, thats outraegeus!!! And they should have had their salaries garnished to buy that guys another car.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I hope those guys got punished, thats outraegeus!!! And they should have had their salaries garnished to buy that guys another car.
That's irony, correct?
-
Originally posted by Naso
That's irony, correct?
You mean sarcasm?
No, I'm serious. That kind of behavior is downright unjust and unamerican, the individuals involved should be held responsible.
-
I guess the "Will be welcomed as Liberators" and "Cheered into Baghdad" is a long distant dream now. Though I don't think many people believed they would be other then the spin doctors.
...-Gixer
-
Looters have their car destroyed...*gasp* this is just too much, everyone, quickly, lets hold hands so we can overcome this horrific experience..these...these shocking video images. The responsible soldiers must be sent to the Hauge immideately to pay for their horrible crimes.
Everyone should pull out of Iraq now, and all soldiers stationed in Iraq now should have their pay cut to pay for all the damages infliced on civilian property like that.
No war for cars!!
...idiots
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I guess the "Will be welcomed as Liberators" and "Cheered into Baghdad" is a long distant dream now. Though I don't think many people believed they would be other then the spin doctors.
...-Gixer
I love how you project this one incident to suit your preconceved biases.
Lets wait one minute till somebody who supports the war puts up a video showing the army doing good things, of coursre, naturally this means we can project that to mean all Iraqis will love us...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Looters have their car destroyed...*gasp* this is just too much, everyone, quickly, lets hold hands so we can overcome this horrific experience..these...these shocking video images. The responsible soldiers must be sent to the Hauge immideately to pay for their horrible crimes.
Everyone should pull out of Iraq now, and all soldiers stationed in Iraq now should have their pay cut to pay for all the damages infliced on civilian property like that.
No war for cars!!
...idiots
No hortlund. What those guys did was unprofesional.
-
Well...I disagree
What were their options? Considering that this was during the war or right after the war...
1) leave them be
2) shoot them
3) punish them...somehow...to discourage them from doing it again
They went with option 3 which IMO was the best option of the three.
-
They should have found a better way to "punish" them.. You must consider proportionality... I'm surprised that you arent since you are judge, no?
-
What about the proportionality? What else could the take? Their clothes?
The iraqis were looting something, unclear exactly how and what, but wood was involved somehow. Presumably the Iraqis had been destroying property and breaking into homes and buildings in their hunt for loot.
So...how do you punish them?
Take their loot? Not enough punishment, and how fun would it be to drag around a few hundred pounds of firewood on the next mission?
Take their clothes? I dont think so.
Take their car? Yeah, right, like anyone would want to drag that car around Baghdad.
Destroy their loot? Not enough punishment, and it would presumably punish the wrong people too.
Destroy their clothes? I dont think so.
Destroy their car? Well... why not. It teaches them a lesson, it removes their ability to move around their loot in case they want to keep looting after the troops are gone. It hurts them but is not an overkill, nor does it cause traumatic suffering, nor is it against any fundamental human rights etc etc.
-
They did destroy their loot... So they did punish the wrong people.. Look atv the video..
Those guys were totally careless and unproffesional.... They were not acting as american soldiers should.
Those Iraqis didnt look so tough and nothing seems to show they were resisting, a little verbal attention and initimidation, like police officers do, would have worked just fine to send a message.
-
Hortlund :eek:
For instance, they could have taken them and towed the car to some kind of control post where an officer would have decided what to do. No violence is needed if they don't resist. This idiotic wild wild west parody (I mean, shooting the windshield and the tyres BEFORE crushing the car, come on!) can only have a serious detrimental effect to the people watching from a safe distance away and not knowing what is really going on.
edit: and maybe if that car doesn't look great to you, it must have a higher value to those Iraqis than yours has to you. I don't think that a lot of Iraqis own a car...
-
Well, the problem is that this probably took place at a moment in time when there was no law in Iraq.
The looters are civilians so they cannot be taken prisoners.
There is no Iraqi police force so they cannot be handed over to the proper authorities.
The US forces are responsible for keeping order, at the same time you can bet that the GI's would find themselves on toilet-cleaning-detail if they brought back all looters to their Command post...so what to do...to complicate things even further there is a pesky news crew there shoving a camera up their noses.
Soo..something has to be done...hey look at that car...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
...Lets wait one minute till somebody who supports the war puts up a video showing the army doing good things, of coursre, naturally this means we can project that to mean all Iraqis will love us...
on this one Grun.
I agree that the US troopers certainly do a lot to help the Iraqi's lot regarding food, shelter, medical care...
However one act like this is enough to blow away all the trust built with patience and efforts.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, the problem is that this probably took place at a moment in time when there was no law in Iraq.
The looters are civilians so they cannot be taken prisoners.
There is no Iraqi police force so they cannot be handed over to the proper authorities.
The US forces are responsible for keeping order, at the same time you can bet that the GI's would find themselves on toilet-cleaning-detail if they brought back all looters to their Command post...so what to do...to complicate things even further there is a pesky news crew there shoving a camera up their noses.
Soo..something has to be done...hey look at that car...
You think it was the right thing to do with even a camera taping it? Those guys were careless and unprofessional.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I guess the "Will be welcomed as Liberators" and "Cheered into Baghdad" is a long distant dream now. Though I don't think many people believed they would be other then the spin doctors.
...-Gixer
(http://www.startribune.com/stonline/images/news57/1statue09.l.jpg)
-
There are idiots in every army that has people in it, not that it justifies anything but still i doubt that this is "the american way"....
-
Originally posted by deSelys
on this one Grun.
I agree that the US troopers certainly do a lot to help the Iraqi's lot regarding food, shelter, medical care...
However one act like this is enough to blow away all the trust built with patience and efforts.
I wouldnt go perhapst that far, people are resilient and can move on. However it cerainly doesnt help. Its not good for the Iraqi man because the punisment is excessive, he lost his car. Its sets a bad image. Its not good for the soldiers because it makes them more likely to be meanspirited and such.
I just hope the soldiers involved were held accountable and that somehow that guy got reimbursed by the army, and there are options set up by the army for him to do that, collect in cash for damages in iraq.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://www.startribune.com/stonline/images/news57/1statue09.l.jpg)
Holden, have you noticed how few people are actually in that square cheering when that happend? Wouldn't you of expected atleast a few thousand?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I love how you project this one incident to suit your preconceved biases.
Lets wait one minute till somebody who supports the war puts up a video showing the army doing good things, of coursre, naturally this means we can project that to mean all Iraqis will love us...
I love how you can blindly ignore any incident that dosn't suit your precieved biases.
...-Gixer
-
Old "Kuwaiti Invasion" habits are tough to break, aren't they? ;)
Seriously though..here's a follow up:
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
Several viewers have also written in about the incident shown in FRONTLINE's report in which U.S. troops used a tank to crush the car of a looter. In late October, at a Georgetown University forum, a student asked Deputy Sec'y of Defense Paul Wolfowitz about this incident. Here is Mr. Wolfowitz's response:
"We are looking into it. And mistakes, pretty ugly mistakes can get made in wartime. And that is again one of the reasons why if you can find a peaceful way to resolve things it is so much better. I would remind everybody here...it wasn't so long before that incident when people were saying 'Why don't you shoot a few looters in Baghdad because looting is causing terrible disruption...'
Looting has been a serious problem. I don't know why those mistakes were made in the particular incident that you described. I do know that the best way to change the situation is...to get more Iraqis on the front lines. They are much less likely to make those mistakes. So it's a legitimate question and we're looking into it."
With regard to this letter writer's mention of FRONTLINE's report "The War Behind Closed Doors" you can view the whole program online off our homepage http://www.pbs.org/frontline Just click on our View Online collection of reports.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/talk/
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I love how you can blindly ignore any incident that dosn't suit your precieved biases.
...-Gixer
Wow!! Have you even been reading my posts in this thread?
Just go back and read my posts in this thread, read them and then pleae rething what you just wrote..
I'm amazed that its even possible that you write something like that...
-
We lost the popular support in Iraq? Really? When did this happen?
Oh, you mean Europe is hoping we lose the support of the Iraqi's because then it won't make them look like they're as impotent as they really are.
Face it guys, the Eurpoeans are pissed off because we asked them to help us deal with Iraq, they refused, so we thumbed our noses at them and did it ourselves. They can't accept the fact that a country formed by the very people they considered outcasts, has become the most militarily and economically powerful nation on earth.
Oh and as for your ASSUMPTION that we've lost the popular support of Iraq....
from an ABCNEWS poll in Iraq, which was co-sponsored by the German network ARD, the BBC and NHK in Japan, with sampling and field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England:
U.S.-Led Invasion Views
Right: Sunni Arabs 24% Shiite Arabs 51% Kurds 87%
Wrong: Sunni Arabs 63 Shiite Arabs 35 Kurds 9
Liberated Iraq: Sunni Arabs 21 Shiite Arabs 43 Kurds 82
Humiliated Iraq: Sunni Arabs 66 Shiite Arabs 37 Kurds 11
Attacks on Coalition Forces
Acceptable: Sunni Arabs 36% Shiite Arabs 12% Kurds 2%
Unacceptable: Sunni Arabs 57 Shiite Arabs 85 Kurds 96
Coalition Should Leave Now: Sunni Arabs 29 Shiite Arabs 12 Kurds 2
-
Maybe they should have just shot them all like Saddam would have done? Or, chopped off a few hands like they would have done in their neighbor countries? It's common for looters to be fired upon in a situation like that. These guys got off easy. Get off yer ladder of pretentious indignation.
-
Hey Muck, I won't speak for the rest of Europe but in my case I'm just hoping that:
the losses of life stop ASAP in Iraq
I've never hoped things to go in a hell basket for the US troops in Iraq. But I've never believed that it would be as easy as your daydreaming 2-digit IQ leader announced it would be.
Now if you're so sure that US citizens are welcome in Iraq, just go have your holidays there. It's sunny, and I'm sure that the hotels are pretty cheap.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe they should have just shot them all like Saddam would have done? Or, chopped off a few hands like they would have done in their neighbor countries? It's common for looters to be fired upon in a situation like that. These guys got off easy. Get off yer ladder of pretentious indignation.
Ya, no kidding. We 're there to restore order and get out. Not win popularity contests. If Saddam was in power, those guys would have gotten a lot worse and I bet ya they know it.
And the fact that the owner of the car committed the crime with his onlyh source if income is his fault.
Just because Saddam isn't in power anymore, doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want... like steal from other people.
They weren't maimed, killed or EVEN IMPRISONED for stealing!!!! I think they got off lucky. Im not saying that they should of, but under Saddam thats what they would have got.
-
poor poor Iraqi's
Sure, maybe it wasnt the right thing to do... But take a look at what is going on in iraq today...
Is that right?
When did 2 wrongs make a right?
Is war right?
Is killing period right?
When is violence accpeted?
When is enough, enough?
Was it right when the germans spewed mustard gas over a battle field and our troops drowned due to their own blistering lungs?
Was it ok for Osama Bin Chithead to organize an attack and kill thousands of americans because he didnt like the way we lived?
What makes anything right?
What makes your actions "OK" not only to you but to others in the rest of the world?
It's simple really... And is summed up in one simple phrase
It is all in the eyes of the beholder.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Hey Muck, I won't speak for the rest of Europe but in my case I'm just hoping that:
the losses of life stop ASAP in Iraq
I've never hoped things to go in a hell basket for the US troops in Iraq. But I've never believed that it would be as easy as your daydreaming 2-digit IQ leader announced it would be.
Now if you're so sure that US citizens are welcome in Iraq, just go have your holidays there. It's sunny, and I'm sure that the hotels are pretty cheap.
I agree. The loss of life is deplorable and I cannot wait for our people to come home.
Whether or not I vaction in Iraq depends on what kinds of deals I can get on priceline.;)
-
Real gems!
1) Restoring order by crushing cars with tanks...never thought about that DOH!
2) Because they would have been killed or tortured under SH this behaviour is justified... kindof trying to get them to democracy and human rights ne baby step at a time...
3) Good way to punish them and handle the situation. Yeah right! The guy is still free, but he has lost almost everything. OTOH he still has to eat. So how do you think that he'll get some food when the tank is 2 blocks away? By planting corn??
-
Grun
gixer just owned himself, lol what a tool!
I agree with you on this one as well, they could have handled it better. Though Hortland makes a good point, about not knowing when this was, if it was before the iraq police had been put back in place I am not sure they had that many options, but I think they went to far.
If this was recent then their is no exscuse at all.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Real gems!
1) Restoring order by crushing cars with tanks...never thought about that DOH!
2) Because they would have been killed or tortured under SH this behaviour is justified... kindof trying to get them to democracy and human rights ne baby step at a time...
3) Good way to punish them and handle the situation. Yeah right! The guy is still free, but he has lost almost everything. OTOH he still has to eat. So how do you think that he'll get some food when the tank is 2 blocks away? By planting corn??
Why don't you invite him to come live with you?
-
wasnt there so Im not gonna use some media editors spin to develope my thoughts on the matter. Perhaps these troops were justified in this example of Iraq battlefield justice, perhaps not. One thing is for sure, its on tape.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Grun
gixer just owned himself, lol what a tool!
I agree with you on this one as well, they could have handled it better. Though Hortland makes a good point, about not knowing when this was, if it was before the iraq police had been put back in place I am not sure they had that many options, but I think they went to far.
If this was recent then their is no exscuse at all.
Gto you always agree wth Grun, I thought he owned you? LOL what a tool!
...-Gixer
-
Wow I never knew there were so many military police experts on this forum.
-
Oh God that tanker was (is) a dirtbag.
Over $5 of wood, the Iraqi lost his car (which was his job as a taxi driver).
Who knows what the Iraqi wanted the wood for, maybe cooking fuel, maybe to board up the doors and windows of his house for protection.
The tanker should buy the Iraqi a new car. What do cars cost over there, a few hundred?
I bet the Iraqi's new job is RPG gunner in the insurgent army.
-
Don't know about you but if I had the choice of getting thrown in an Iraqi jail without a system of government in place (so ill have to wait for who knows how long in jail before I get a trial) or lose my car, even if it is my only source of income I would lose the car.
-
This Gixer guy is hillarious.
We basically agree that this incident is disgracseful and inapropraate but he just cant get out of his preconceved notions and limiations and hatreds of america or of different viewpoints to see that agreement.
So he must put up a fight and manufature some sort of irrational conflict between us even if he makes an bellybutton of himself doing so...
What a bizzare mental complex...
But again Gixer.
Go read my posts in this thread.
Then rethink your post abiut me ignoring this incident.
Do it for your sake.
And be careful to do it well....
Because your next post will show us all in the BBS if your retarded or if you are not....
-
Grun maybe he can't read, from what I have seen of his posts, he is not worth paying atention to, Ignore for him.
-
So Funked were you in army and if yes were you also a MP ?
For me it looks like what happens when you put young kids in the men's boots.
-
I'd never ignore anyone, especially one like him... :)
I wonder if its possible that he will just admit his error in the next post and simply move on... Or if he will feel the urge to attack and ridicule again...
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Oh God that tanker was (is) a dirtbag.
Over $5 of wood, the Iraqi lost his car (which was his job as a taxi driver).
Who knows what the Iraqi wanted the wood for, maybe cooking fuel, maybe to board up the doors and windows of his house for protection.
The tanker should buy the Iraqi a new car. What do cars cost over there, a few hundred?
I bet the Iraqi's new job is RPG gunner in the insurgent army.
I don't think it's been established that it was only wood that was stolen. There may have been othere things that were removed from the car or their persons prior to the start of the video. I also don't agree that their action was necessarily inappropriate. They may have had orders to do exactly what was done. Looting in a situation like that can be a very serious problem and must be dealt with firmly if not severely.
Bias becomes very obvious when those with little facts rush to judgement.
-
Originally posted by Staga
So Funked were you in army and if yes were you also a MP ?
No of course not. I am just glad we are so lucky to have so many military experts here who can comment intelligently on every minute detail of US military actions.
-
ya, another thing to remember is that these troops did NOT get criminal justice schooling like a cop does. They ARE just kids and are being asked to do something that they were NOT trained for.
Does it suck for the Iraqi that lost his car? Sure it does. But as I said in previous post, it could have been a whole lot worse for him.
Saying that they should have taken them to a checkpoint or somewhere else for judgement is assuming that they had the freedom to leave their patrol area. It also assumes that they were NOT in contact with a higher up that ordered them to do exactly what they did. I hear our troops got issued radios a few years ago...
-
double post
-
WOW,
OK those soldiers get the Jackprettythang award!!!! Hands down.
What is with the idiot asking, why that kid is not in school. Yeah like school is going on or even exists?
Did you see what they stole, give me a break. If that is what the soldiers are supposed to be doing then someone fked up somewhere.
Whatever moron put those morons in charge should be held responsible as well.
If the roles were reversed and Iraq was the super power that came to liberate us, and this happened to me, I would be signing up with the resistance forces that day.
I can't believe who ever was in charge let that happen. A perfect example of a few idiots making everyone look bad.
-
I remember the looters booing the US Guard after Hurricane Andrew... simply put, those Iraqi's should have been shot for looting. You all act as though the US troops acted like the aggressors, I liked the comment by the one trooper saying, "You want to loot, this is what happens." THen the BS comment about the poor cab driver... whaaaaa!!!! In the US if you use your car in the commission of a crime, YOU LOSE IT! SO guess what, maybe he should not have been looting....
The sad thing about all this is that you pansies feel sorry for the looters, and not the child who was participating at too early an age in rediculous bs that he has no right too.
-
Ending on film: "I'm a Taxi driver and this car was my livelyhood."
Actual ending: "We stole the car before we decided to loot these buildings"
-
Its not so much the loss of the looters car, but the attitude and unprofessional way it went down. They shot the car with pistols, were laughing and having a gay ole time.
It makes the Army and America look like a bunch of Aholes.
-
FYI,
That occured on the first days that the troops arrived in Baghdad. They were under a lot of pressure to quell the looting and this is how these guys did it. Was a bit of overkill. I would have thought a couple rounds in the car would have given them a reminder. Of all the things going on, this is not the mega event some of you guys are making it out to be. I'll agree that it should have been handled more professionally but you should consider the circumstances.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Hey Muck, I won't speak for the rest of Europe but in my case I'm just hoping that:
the losses of life stop ASAP in Iraq
You mean .... if the U.S. pulls out that the loss of life will stop in Iraq? Cool!
I want the U.S. to pull out of the U.S. then!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'd never ignore anyone, especially one like him... :)
I wonder if its possible that he will just admit his error in the next post and simply move on... Or if he will feel the urge to attack and ridicule again...
Grun,
"I love how you project this one incident to suit your preconceved biases. "
Attack and ridicule?
You were the one to attack and ridicule on a personal note from your very first response to me. I was just ridiculing Cheyne's wishful thinking on how the troops would be welcomed into Iraq as liberators as part of the pre war spin. Suprised you haven't moved on.
Or is quoting US vice presidents in a adverse way enough to get you ignored these days?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
That occured on the first days that the troops arrived in Baghdad.
How do you know that?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How do you know that?
It was in the show.. this is a clipping from a program I saw last week.. think it was cnn presents.. I may be wrong on that.
-
just one more reason why we should let the sadman go and surrender imediately.
maybe if we apolodgize the bad men won't blow up any of our trains.
lazs
-
As far as what Iraqis think of the US Army. Who's opinion do you want?
The owner of the Car?
Or the owner of the House?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
just one more reason why we should let the sadman go and surrender imediately.
maybe if we apolodgize the bad men won't blow up any of our trains.
lazs
Why don't you go personally to Iraq and test your presumption?
Just saying
Daniel
-
Originally posted by mars01
Its not so much the loss of the looters car, but the attitude and unprofessional way it went down. They shot the car with pistols, were laughing and having a gay ole time.
It makes the Army and America look like a bunch of Aholes.
Exactly.
culero
-
They shot the car with pistols, were laughing and having a gay ole time.
Amen to that!
Americas Finest :rolleyes:
-
LOL Maniac,
Could you imagine if the cops did that. Makes me laugh just thinking about it.
Any City USA
Cops come to door, sir did you steal that.
Citizen, um nope.
Well to teach you a lesson were going to shoot and crush your car. Have a nice day.
-
First, you gotta get their attention!
Seriously, the USA has taken a beating in the press, domestically and internationally for just about everything in Iraq, and especially "failing to stop or control looting".
I agree that their tactic seems harsh, but consider these two thoughts, 1) They will be less tempted to go out and steal again, and 2) Saddam Husseins regime would have most probably tortured them and their families, then killed them for stealing.
dago
-
In twenties and even after that some Americans were merrily lynching people with different skin colour without any courts or judges.
Just wear a white rope and carry a cross and you can show *******s and *****s who's the boss.
Maybe it's just part of their heritage so it's not really their fault :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
In twenties and even after that some Americans were merrily lynching people with different skin colour without any courts or judges.
Just wear a white rope and carry a cross and you can show *******s and *****s who's the boss.
Maybe it's just part of their heritage so it's not really their fault :)
And maybe you're just a small, silly little man with no value or purpose. So it's not your fault either.
-
staga.. do you know how many blacks were lynched in the twenties?
cyrano... why would I go to iraq to surrender? couldn't I just do it here or... like some countries.... at the polls?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Staga
In twenties and even after that some Americans were merrily lynching people with different skin colour without any courts or judges.
Just wear a white rope and carry a cross and you can show *******s and *****s who's the boss.
Maybe it's just part of their heritage so it's not really their fault :)
With a thought process like that what makes you think you reserve any right to judge anyone else? wtg dirtbag! :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
staga.. do you know how many blacks were lynched in the twenties?
cyrano... why would I go to iraq to surrender? couldn't I just do it here or... like some countries.... at the polls?
lazs
I was hoping you stayed there. Hey, one can dream...
-
Originally posted by Dago
First, you gotta get their attention!
Seriously, the USA has taken a beating in the press, domestically and internationally for just about everything in Iraq, and especially "failing to stop or control looting".
I agree that their tactic seems harsh, but consider these two thoughts, 1) They will be less tempted to go out and steal again, and 2) Saddam Husseins regime would have most probably tortured them and their families, then killed them for stealing.
dago
IMO you forgot a third option 3) they will do their best to help the rebels.
-
cyrano.. why would I go to iraq? I will be happy if they send the oil here tho.
staga.. even easier question for you.... can you tell me how many black citizens you had in finland in the twenties?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cyrano.. why would I go to iraq? I will be happy if they send the oil here tho.
lazs
I hear they sell extremely cheap kalashnikovs there.
Daniel
-
nah...its the RPG's that are cheap, the survival rate of the users are too low to justify a higher price.
-
Not really that fond of AK's but they will do in a pinch.. not a bad choice in a lot of situations even.. Still... they are cheap everywhere.
Perhaps if you went there and helped the freedom fighters throw out the infidels they would be grateful and leave you alone?
lazs
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
No of course not. I am just glad we are so lucky to have so many military experts here who can comment intelligently on every minute detail of US military actions.
30 some odd years ago we were doing almost the exact same thing. Killing cattle and burning down hooches because we 'suspected' they were supporting the VC. Hell, whole villages would go up in smoke if we found a stockpile of rice where we thought it shouldn't be.
These incidents are not new to this war and not uncommon to the past wars, the only thing that has changed is the advent of instant mass communication and field recording devices.
To overly criticize these troops for a lack of judgement seriously minimises the stress they are under on a minute by minute basis.
Should it have happened? Of course not. Relieving the stress our troops are under would be the best way to stop this type of behaviour from propogating. Announcing that they will have to stay longer that a tour in a war zone should be isn't the way though.
-
IMO you forgot a third option 3) they will do their best to help the rebels.
Sounds fine to me, they can die with the rebels and then they won't be stealing anymore.
Good idea.
So easy for so many to judge when you aren't in their shoes.
dago
-
That's not right.....
My dad could fix that....he's a TV repairman...he has an awesome set of tools.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Oh God that tanker was (is) a dirtbag.
Over $5 of wood, the Iraqi lost his car (which was his job as a taxi driver).
Who knows what the Iraqi wanted the wood for, maybe cooking fuel, maybe to board up the doors and windows of his house for protection.
The tanker should buy the Iraqi a new car. What do cars cost over there, a few hundred?
I bet the Iraqi's new job is RPG gunner in the insurgent army.
maybe he already was an RPG gunner and lied about being a taxi driver? Was he suni? Shiite? Kurd? What happened right before that scene started? Where did they get the wood from? Did they break into something to get it? Did they just pick it up off the ground? Jeez I dunno, kind of hard to form an opinion from 30 seconds of film. Or at least it should be, don't ya think?
-
Commanders in Iraq were getting their tulips chewed off while their men were dying trying to fight a war because pinheads back in the states were up in arms about ****ing museums being looted.
Aside from shooting the looters what could they do ? Can't take them prisoner, can't impound their vehicles, really don't even have the resources to confiscate the stolen crap.
So tankers were given orders, if you come upon a scene where a vehicle is being used in some kind of theft, get everybody away from the vehilce, do not touch the vehicle, shoot it up in case it's mined or some ****, then flatten it.
Tankers would've done the same thing or worse in europe in the 40s had they been faced with the same dilema.
You can bet those men weren't acting without instruction.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
It was in the show.. this is a clipping from a program I saw last week.. think it was cnn presents.. I may be wrong on that.
Thanks!
-
Hey if they lined up say ten or more taxis in a row and had Monster Truck drag races up and down the strip, then it would be cause for concern.
"War is Hell" especially more so for taxis.
-
Wars were a hell of a lot more fun when there weren't cameras all over the damn place. Compensation? Give that boy a Rickshaw-and give me the gasoline for my SUV.
Hearts-Minds-Asses-Alligators-Swamp.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Holden, have you noticed how few people are actually in that square cheering when that happend? Wouldn't you of expected at least a few thousand?
...-Gixer
Personally, if I were a ****e, I would have kept my head down for a few more days and let the dust settle a bit. If I were a Bathist or a Sunni, I would have been in hiding and setting up my next move.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not really that fond of AK's but they will do in a pinch.. not a bad choice in a lot of situations even.. Still... they are cheap everywhere.
Perhaps if you went there and helped the freedom fighters throw out the infidels they would be grateful and leave you alone?
lazs
In that case I'd offer you as a token of gratitude. I'm sure they'd find a good use for you, and you'd like it... eventually.
Daniel
-
Personally i was amazed that those Gangbangers (Americas Finest) didnt shoot at the car with the Guns "sideways"... True Gangsta Styleee....
-
Gangbangers ?
-
Face it guys, the Eurpoeans are pissed off because we asked them to help us deal with Iraq, they refused, so we thumbed our noses at them and did it ourselves. They can't accept the fact that a country formed by the very people they considered outcasts, has become the most militarily and economically powerful nation on earth.
Wow Muck :eek: *sound of the air rushing overhead*
-
Who cares about the popular support in Iraq? Who cares what a bunch of pinhead euros think? I sure don't We aren't there to win a popularity contest. While those guys were foolish to pose for the the leftists in that obviously anti whatever this administration is doing crew that was their only mistake. If I were them, after crushing the Iraqi car I would have confiscated the audio/video recording equipment and crushed the film crew's car as well. Then the Iraqi looters could have had someone to comiserate with.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So Storch, why do you think the US is there?
Dont you know, gs?
They are searching OBL.
-
"In that case I'd offer you as a token of gratitude. I'm sure they'd find a good use for you, and you'd like it... eventually.
Daniel"
well... I guess I will just have to take your word for that... I don't think I could ever get quite that "european" tho.
lazs
-
If this came from PBS I wont believe ONE bit of it. I saw a PBS special on the invasion of Iraq. It was SOOOOO slanted it was unreal. They portrayed the US as total monsters by finding anyone they could that lost somone and interviewing them. I'm not saying this is wrong but it was not a "balenced" representation at all. They interviewed more Iraqi commanders than american comanders. The film states at the end: " the owner of the car said 'im a taxi driver...that car is my livlihood'" What if he was really a looter and just trying to win sympothy???
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So Storch, why do you think the US is there?
Instead of Nasos attempt at wit, why dont we let the US president answer this question shall we?
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.
The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.
I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM; deceptive in hiding things. We knew they were hiding things -- a country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a -- the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations; he was a danger. And so we dealt with him.
What else -- part of the question -- oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are -- they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren't, they're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people -- it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there's mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of -- a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country.
And you know what? It makes a hell of a lot more sense than the "woe is us Iraq is Vietnam" / "no blood for oil"-crowd
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Thank you Hortlund, but I was more interested in Storch's answer since it obviously isn't in the US Administrations interest to shoot Iraqi civilians and US/international reporters.
Also, I find the President's speech to be less than fulfilling. He never specifies how Iraq was a threat to the US, however he used to say WMD was the threat. I wonder if he will ever publicly acknowledge that he was wrong and the UN was right ... probably not.
Seems like he did specify pretty clearly to me:
"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders."
-
Originally posted by AKIron
He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people.
How in gods name does that make him a threat to the US?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How in gods name does that make him a threat to the US?
You're taking that line out of context. It shows that he is homicidal. Coupled with the other two reasons listed make him a very dangerous threat.
-
What was the chemical weapon used at Waco, Tx?? Remember the place that burnt? Anyone care to guess what the gas injected in the Waco compound turns into when it burns??
My point is, many governments have done terrible things to their populace, including America's... Waco was not the only terrible tragedy carried out by our government on it's own peoples.. To use the one instant of SH gasing (questionably) his own people is simply non-sense..
dude
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Seems like he did specify pretty clearly to me:
"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders."
AKIron,
That argument that he was a threat is very weak simply because prior to 9/11 Powel himlself was quoted as saying he no longer posed a threat to the world community or even the region because of the amount of damage done to his military after the first Gulf War and because of sanctions and weapons inspections.
Unfortunetly I don't have the quote at hand but could find it easily enough.
If we are talking about threats to the world then why wasn't N.Korea or Iran invaded, espcially when they are blantinly producing weapons grade material? And already have large stockpiles of chemical weapons.
Iraq there were no WMD or even WMD programes, now the Bush Admin still try to play down all that and mention, but he did have intent to produce WMD. Hardly sufficent to invade a country. Nor is the reason, but yes he had used chemical weapons before. Well when he did everyone turned a blind eye and just said, don't do that again while continuing to support him as he was fighting the Iranians.
Oh, but he was linked to terroisim and this is the war on terror. Well unfortunetly there's been no link proven yet. But there is certinly alot of terroists and support for terroists groups in Iraq now.
Reason Iraq was invaded instead of N.Korea or Iran as that it was seen as a easy target and assumed to be a quick war. Unfortunetly no war or occupation is easy. Invading another country is a war easy to get into, but very very hard to get out of. I would of thought history had already taught that lesson.
...-Gixer
-
I think we are there to secure a steady and abundant source of oil for ourselves and our allies. if we have an added bonus that we deny the french and the germans that opportunity, so much the better. he who controls the oil controls the world. we are after all the last superpower it's nice to flex. it's nice to see the euros squirm. perhaps then we may be able rely less on the saudis for our oil and also replace their heavy investments in our markets thereby placing ourselves in a situation where if they were to take their (saudi) money to the eurot markets we might not be so badly impacted. this is my view but what do I know? I'm mighty glad that we are there also. The invasion had my full support for the above stated reason. As side note kicking saddam in the teeth was good. we need to roll on in the region and N. Africa as well. there are other sources of fossil fuel, ya know.
-
quit looking in the mirror then. pfffft poor misguided, pitiable soul.
-
Originally posted by storch
quit looking in the mirror then. pfffft poor misguided, pitiable soul.
You don't own a mirror I guess.
-
The fact is War is horrible,you cant please everyone in a war..you will always piss someone off.
Personally in my opinion while those soldiers shouldent of gloated about the fact they were crushing the car I dont belive that a EFFECTIVE soulotion could of been made let me explain.
Everyday we hear a soldier is killed, its still a very hostile enviorment they must be on guard at all times but they also have to police the people aswell.
If they called for a tow truck they would have to stay there and wait thus comprimision their potrol mission also the men would have to been brought in to detertion. I n which they would have to be fed housed ect if this was the SOP of all offenders the U.S. deficit would be much higher than it already is.This would carry on to the american tax payers and shift the world ecenomic status(im not a expert but i do belive there would be a impact). Im not saying that this one innocdint would do that but if the SOP for all offenders this would most likely happen.
I do belive that destroying the car was not improper. As you can see the car was being used to steal and removing the car would prohibit the offenders to do applical amount of damnage and discourage future offences also this let the troops go on their way and continue their mission.
I also belive that the owner of the car was not a taxi driver it doesent make sence..Obviously he is a ppor man like most in such a economy and the only viable place for operation of a taxi would be the city. Well in all cities there is a strong precence of allied forces they also must do security aswell stopping cars to search ect. Driving a taxi doesent sound like a viable or demand source of income. Higher officials have their own transports and the average " joe" possible would not have money to spare for a ride. So this leaves doubt and most likely a spin off from the reporters.
I could be wrong because im not there this is just my opinion. Also im really not in favor of blaming somone for being over there...at this point it really doesent matter the fact is we are over there and we have to deal with it. Instead of pointing fingers why dont we help our troops get their mission done and get out. There are many ways to do this..sending care packages donations ect. If you want to blame someone thats fine. but regardles of who is held responcible the troops will still be there reguardless and they have been getting "punished" everyday. You are more than welcome to debate and raise issues about it but im sure there will be time for that after the killing has stopped..
Thats Just my Opinon I could be wrong....
Drake
-
yes I do!!! I see an intelligent, handsome and most of all humble man in it. I shall ask him to leave before my wife runs away with him. I heard all the ones in fffffffrance are broken.
-
Drake.
-
Originally posted by storch
yes I do!!! I see an intelligent, handsome and most of all humble man in it. I shall ask him to leave before my wife runs away with him. I heard all the ones in fffffffrance are broken.
So you should now that a mirror got two side one is a mirror the other not (this is the one where you put the picture of a handsome and humble man).
-
straffo, while i can usually understand and at times enjoy your drivel that last post was unintelligible. surely your English is better that my french. please put down the cheese, wine and domestic partner and try again.
BTW i haven't shot you down in a while were are you ever hiding?
-
Curently I avoid fighting HOer Niki that's perhaps why you don't have a kill on me.
Give me a moth when I'll return to my usual Typhoon ride and we will able ti joust like real knights :rolleyes:
-
spoken like a true frenchperson. Boelke's dicta, rule #5 is?
-
you have a handgun in you niki ?
-
you madam, are avoiding the question
-
You don't have read the original german verion I guess ?
See point 7 if your translation is accurate.
Btw even if you want to have sex with me badly I still don't have changed sex.
-
ewwwwwwww, what an unappealing suggestion. plus i think you flatter yourself. ask dowding, they are known for those proclivities. he sounds more your type also.
-
didn't most pilots carry handguns? I know WWII U.S. flyers did.
Russian cosmonauts also carried firearms in their capsules... they got dumped 1000 miles off target one time and allmost got eaten by wolves.
guns are useful.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Kurds were fighting with the Iranians, they were definitively not "his people". They were rebels at best, traitors at worst.
Great argument...
So if we apply the same logic on Yugoslavia, we get an OK from GScholz to gas the Albanians?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
When some (and I said 'some', I don't think this is a majority) act like this:
Film (http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfakt/clips/sick/DontLoot.wmv)
Even if those guys were looters, this way of handling it is totally unprofessional.
I dissagree.
In most places in the world they dont crush the cars of looters.. they shoot them
-
Anyway, let me walk you through it then.
1)
the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
2)
Saddam Hussein was a threat.
3)
He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people.
He was a threat because he coddled terrorists.
He was a threat because he funded suiciders.
He was a threat to the region.
He was a threat to the United States.
4)
That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence,
the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence;
that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
-
I don't think Saddam had any other people than the one of his tribe.
-
I think most people choose to interpret "his people" as "the people caught inside the border of the nation known as Iraq"
... not "the people who love and worship him" or "the people with the same ethnical background as him" or "his family".
-
I agree Hortlund , it's just a precision I was adding.
Iraq was and still is a mix between primitive tribal system and feodal country IMO.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think any government would consider people taking up arms and fighting alongside an enemy army "their people" no matter where they were located.
So all the Norwegian members of Waffen SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment 23 Norge ceased to be Norwegians the minute they enlisted?
How about Quisling...was he Norwegian?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think any government would consider people taking up arms and fighting alongside an enemy army "their people" no matter where they were located.
Lincoln's did.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I contest that. When did the UN declare Iraq was "coddling" terrorists? When did the UN declare Iraq funded "suiciders"? When did the UN declare Iraq was a threat to the United States of America?
The UN did not reach the exact same assessment. The UNSC voted against the US and UK ... France didn't even have to use its veto.
Ah, the semantics game...fun fun fun...and IMPORTANT most of all.
The UN never declared that Iraq was funding suicide bombers, probably because that fact was not even disputed...since both Saddam himself and his UN embassador openly stated that they did.
The UNSC declared several times that Iraq was a threat.
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How about Israel?
What about Israel? Are you next going to say something about how the Palestinians are really Israelis?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Actually I contest that. He used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Neither are "his own people". Iran also used chemical weapons in that war. Chemical weapons weren't even classified as WMD until 1991. I'd like to see some proof that he "coddled" terrorists, his intelligence operatives actually killed Abu Nidal. He did not fund "suiciders", he gave money to the families of everyone who died by Israeli hands or in the fight against Israel. Obviously a PR campaign to gather some support from the Islamic populations that didn't like his secular regime much.
I don't see how Iraq was a threat to the US.
Who cares what you see or don't see? Our decisions on national security aren't beholden to you.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
And again, please find where the UN declares Iraq a threat to the United States of America, and that the are funding "suiciders". Iraq has made no such statement.
No, you are (trying?) to play the semantics game again here.
Let me walk you through it *again*
1) 9-11 taught the US one thing, the need for preemptive self-defence.
Bush formulates it thusly:
when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm.
Ok, are you with me so far? This is the basis of the attack on Iraq, the foundation if you will. If there is a threat or a gatering threat, just sitting idle and wishing it away will not help, nor will appeasement or whatever. See a threat? Deal with it now, instead of having another 9-11.
Ok...everyone following this so far?
2) Iraq was percieved to be a threat to the US, or at least a gathering threat. Why?
- Insane dictator that hates the US
- WMDs used before by said dictator
- Ties between said dictator and various terrorist organizations
- Said dictator has already started numerous wars of aggression
That combination makes Iraq a threat or a gathering threat to the US.
Because the combination of mad dictator + WMDs + ties to international terrorism + intense hatred of USA = Threat.
The UNSC has said several times that Iraq was a threat to international peace and stability. Check. The UNSC has stated several times that Iraq had to do several specific things in order to stop being considered a threat to international peace and stability. Iraq did not do that.
Ok, what does all this mean? Well, we have a threat/gathering threat (Iraq) and we have the realization that you cannot just sit on your arse and wish for all the bad people to go away.
= War
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, you are (trying?) to play the semantics game again here.
Let me walk you through it *again*
1) 9-11 taught the US one thing, the need for preemptive self-defence.
Bush formulates it thusly:
when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm.
Ok, are you with me so far? This is the basis of the attack on Iraq, the foundation if you will. If there is a threat or a gatering threat, just sitting idle and wishing it away will not help, nor will appeasement or whatever. See a threat? Deal with it now, instead of having another 9-11.
Ok...everyone following this so far?
2) Iraq was percieved to be a threat to the US, or at least a gathering threat. Why?
- Insane dictator that hates the US
- WMDs used before by said dictator
- Ties between said dictator and various terrorist organizations
- Said dictator has already started numerous wars of aggression
That combination makes Iraq a threat or a gathering threat to the US.
Because the combination of mad dictator + WMDs + ties to international terrorism + intense hatred of USA = Threat.
The UNSC has said several times that Iraq was a threat to international peace and stability. Check. The UNSC has stated several times that Iraq had to do several specific things in order to stop being considered a threat to international peace and stability. Iraq did not do that.
Ok, what does all this mean? Well, we have a threat/gathering threat (Iraq) and we have the realization that you cannot just sit on your arse and wish for all the bad people to go away.
= War
Funny how pre 9/11 Powel himself is quoted as saying the exact opposite to every point you've made. Sadam wasn't a threat to his own region let alone the world.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Funny how pre 9/11 Powel himself is quoted as saying the exact opposite to every point you've made. Sadam wasn't a threat to his own region let alone the world.
...-Gixer
I've been looking for the Powell quote that says "Saddam is not an insane meglomaniac and never used gas against the Kurds."
so far no luck.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I've been looking for the Powell quote that says "Saddam is not an insane meglomaniac and never used gas against the Kurds."
so far no luck.
Oh so that's the reason why we invaded Iraq, he had used WMD"s before and was a meglomaniac? Excellent then how come that wasn't done back in the 80's when he used those WMD's?
Probably cause at that time he was supported by the west. Strange how things change. Also strange how much the Bush admin changed it's tune after 9/11
Guess someone was looking for a easy war. Problem is no wars are easy. Especially occupations. Easy to get into, hard to get out of.
"On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
-
In regards to the original video, I've read on some blog someone said that the soldiers were reprimanded and sent home, but I can find no verification.
Does anyone know if that's true?
Also, a Marine friend of mine found the video distasteful and said that while it was conceivable (he stressed that it wasn't likely, but possible) that they had received orders to crush the car, discharging their firearms into the car was a clear no-no because:
a. The vehicle did not pose am immediate threat.
b. because of item a, the risk of ricochet should have prevented them from firing.
He also mentioned that he would assume they could face courts martial for unauthorized discharge of firearm, even though it's a war zone.
Any thoughts?
-
Naso Naso Naso... why did you have to ask for it? :D
-
Originally posted by mosgood
ya, another thing to remember is that these troops did NOT get criminal justice schooling like a cop does. They ARE just kids and are being asked to do something that they were NOT trained for.
You'd think people has common sense.. especially their officers should have some idea how things are done.